Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER (FINANCE, &C.) BILL

As amended, considered, to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Trident

Mr. Fallon: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs in the north-east are (a) directly or (b) indirectly dependent on the Trident programme.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of jobs in Scotland which are directly and indirectly dependent on the Trident programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Mr. Speaker, may I first apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on an official visit to the Far East?
Estimates of the total number of United Kingdom jobs dependent on the Trident programme are not made on a regional basis. However, it is estimated that the Trident programme will create on average 7,500 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs over its procurement period. Construction work alone in Scotland on Trident facilities will directly employ over 2,500 in its peak year.

Mr. Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 800 men at Cleveland Bridge in my constituency have been working on the cradle construction for the Trident programme and that they are bidding for further work at Faslane and Coulport?
Is he further aware that the number one fear in Darlington is that an incoming Labour Government might cancel the Trident programme and put an end to that work?

Mr. Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's constituency interest. We must bear in mind that, although there are many direct jobs, a significant number of indirect jobs are also involved. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents are as concerned as anybody that the programme should be continued.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Does he not find it remarkable that the Opposition parties

are prepared, not only to gamble with the defence of this country, but to abandon a project upon which thousands of jobs depend, especially in the west of Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. About 4,500 Ministry of Defence civilian employees currently work on the deterrent at Coulport, Faslane and Rosyth. If it comes to cancelling Polaris and Trident, the work for 2,000 employees will be lost in Rosyth unless it is replaced by other nuclear submarine work.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reflect that his strictures about job losses, particularly in Scotland, come ill from his mouth, when his Government. have lost nearly 20,000 jobs in Scotland because of the mismanagement of North sea oil?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Ask a question about Trident.

Mr. Douglas: They will lose a lot more with Trident. On the question of Trident, will the Minister confirm that the construction work at Rosyth is not exclusively for Trident but is for dual-streaming and could be used for SSNs and SSKs?

Mr. Hamilton: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is certainly true that it could be so used, but a reason why we are having to put in those facilities is the much larger size of Trident submarines. Therefore, they need extra facilities.
The Government cannot be blamed for the fall in the price of oil across the world and the decline of the North sea oil industry. The Opposition could be blamed for having policies that will destroy jobs in Scotland.

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister say how many jobs will be put at risk, particularly in the Royal Ordnance factories, at Swan Hunter, and at Marconi, because of the Trident's impact on the defence procurement programme?

Mr. Hamilton: No jobs are being put at risk in that direction at the moment. We have a large ordering programme.

Mr. Franks: My hon. Friend has referred to job losses in the north-east and Scotland. Will he note that in Barrow over 4,000 people, or 30 per cent. of the work force, are currently employed on the Trident programme, and that by 1990 75 per cent., or more than 9,000 people, will be employed on that programme? What are the prospects for those jobs if an incoming Labour or alliance/Labour Government cancel Trident overnight? What will 9,000 of my constituents do?

Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that the impact on my hon. Friend's constituency will be devastating, and whatever plans there are to substitute that work they will take so long to come through that in the short-term those people will find themselves on the street.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister realise that whatever jobs are tied to Trident in defined communities in Britain they are as nothing to the jobs that have been and will be lost as a result of the cut in conventional expenditure in the rest of Britain's defence industries? Does he realise that 1,800 jobs have already been lost at Westland as a result of the Government——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be, but the question is about Trident.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister realise that the Trident expenditure has already cost 1,800 jobs in Yeovil


and will cost more, and that the people of Yeovil have nothing to thank Trident for, because we are bearing the first fruits of this bitter pill?

Mr. Hamilton: There is no direct relationship between Trident and the orders at Westland.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cancellation of Trident would, obviously, be serious for job losses? If Trident were cancelled, does he agree that it would be even more serious in terms of the destabilisation of NATO and our position in it?

Mr. Hamilton: I could not agree more with my hon. and learned Friend. There is no doubt that our commitment to our independent deterrent is, indeed, important.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister knows well that 95 per cent. of the people employed in the defence industries in the north-east and Scotland are producing non-nuclear defence equipment. With the cuts that must come in the defence budget falling on non-nuclear defence equipment to pay for Trident, far more people will lose their jobs than those now employed on Trident. Why does the Minister not admit those facts?

Mr. Hamilton: It is difficult to admit that when the cost of Trident is falling.

United States Secretary for Defence

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the United States Secretary for Defence to discuss nuclear defence policy.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): My right hon. Friend next expects to meet the United States Secretary of Defence at the spring meeting of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group.

Mr. Alton: Now that the American authorities have admitted that the W79 nuclear shell has been deployed in West Germany, and that as long ago as Montebello the decision was taken to modernise battlefield nuclear weapons, how can the Minister justify the wholly contradictory, deceitful replies given from the Government Dispatch Box to my hon. Friends——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the word deceitful, please?

Mr. Alton: I shall withdraw deceitful. How can the Minister justify the replies that he and his colleagues gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that no such decisions had been taken?

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly justify exactly what has been said, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to what has been said on that particular issue. At the Montebello meeting of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group in 1983 NATO agreed both a major reduction in the number of its theatre nuclear weapons in Europe and the need for possible improvements to ensure the effectiveness of the remaining stockpile. That was clearly set out in the communiqué issued at the Montebello meeting. Since then SACEUR has put forward his proposals for these improvements and these have been pursued with the individual nations concerned. But, as Defence Ministers have made clear to the House, no

decisions affecting the modernisation of theatre nuclear weapons in service with British forces have yet been made. That is what we have said, that is correct, and it is completely straightforward.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to remind the American Defence Secretary that during the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles, which are important to the twin-track negotiations, the alliance parties and the Labour party voted in this House against their deployment? Although today they try to pretend otherwise, that was how they acted at that time.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is of course entirely correct. Although some other parties in the House have sought to re-write the history of their actions in this House, only the Government have consistently adhered to the deployment of ground launched cruise missiles and Pershing 2 without which no INF negotiations would be taking place at the moment.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister remind his right hon. Friend, when he next meets the United States Defence Secretary, that the new Chairmen of both of the Armed Services Committees in Congress, Mr. Les Aspin and Sam Nunn, are a good deal more nuclear-allergic than their predecessors? They probably typify a growing understanding throughout the Alliance of the importance of early INF agreement in Europe, about which the Prime Minister should be careful not to appear to be quibbling or dragging her feet?

Mr. Stanley: In both the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States there is a total understanding that we can deter a nuclear threat only with nuclear weapons. The only allergy to nuclear defence exists on the Opposition Front Bench. They are undermining the whole of the NATO posture of a combination of nuclear and conventional deterrence?

Mr. Nicholas: Does my right hon. Friend not find it slightly strange to be questioned about the detail of nuclear policy by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), bearing in mind that he represents a party in which 83 per cent. of the prospective parliamentary candidates are committed to unilateralism?

Mr. Stanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that very important statistic. While we are on the subjects of polls, I noticed a very interesting poll produced in the Sunday press last Sunday. The sample was asked "Which party do you trust to make the right decisions about defence, nuclear weapons and disarmament?" In reply, 42 per cent. said the Conservatives, only 20 per cent. said Labour and the Liberal—SDP alliance was the least trusted of all parties, with only 15 per cent. support.

Mr. Denzil Davies: It is quite clear from the Minister of State's replies that his answers are now written by the politburo in Smith Square and are not really Government answers at all, or perhaps they are written by the chairman of the Conservative party himself. To return to the question, there is a certain amount of confusion. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with deceit. However, there is a certain amount of confusion between what was said in this House and what is said by some American officials. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position? As I understand it, a decision was taken——

Mr. Richard Holt: Put the question.

Mr. Davies: I will put my question in my own way.
As I understand it a general decision was taken at Montebello to modernise the remaining NATO theatre or tactical nuclear weapons. Is the Minister of State saying that British tactical nulear weapons and those American nuclear weapons that could be available to British forces in Germany were excluded from the Montebello agreement, or included? If they were included, a decision in principle has been taken.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman must carefully study what I have said. The position is absolutely clear. A decision in favour of the modernisation of the residual stockpile was taken at Montebello as part of the agreement. However, as for the implementation of that decision in relation to theatre nuclear weapons in service with British forces, no decisions have yet been made.

Crown Proceedings Act 1947

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions he has met representatives of the Atomic Veterans Associations and of the Section Ten Abolition Group; and if he has any plans to meet them in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. Friend met a delegation including members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and the Section Ten Abolition Group on 20 February 1986 and I received a petition concerning section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 from members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association on 13 November 1986. I understand that my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has agreed to meet representatives of the BNTVA.

Mr. Ashley: The Minister will be aware that both those organisations are concerned with the welfare of ex-service and service personnel. Will he recognise that those ex-service men and women who have been disabled by negligence will continue their fight for the same right to sue for compensation as is to be given to present members of the armed services? Will he further recognise, on the question of bullying and brutality in the Army—another aspect of negligence—that hon. Members on both sides of the House have——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot relate that to atomic veterans.

Mr. Ashley: I suggest that brutality in the armed forces is an aspect of negligence. Therefore, in so far as officers are being negligent, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have additional evidence that that brutality is taking place, will the Minister now undertake to meet a deputation of hon. Members from both sides of the House to discuss that evidence?

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have made it plain that bullying and any mistreatment of soldiers is not and never has been tolerated in the British armed forces. My right hon. Friend and I are always happy to meet hon. Members and delegations to discuss any topic.

Mr. Cartwright: If the Government honestly believe that no British service man suffered injury as a result of

the British nuclear weapons test, why do the Minister and his colleagues seem so reluctant to have that view tested in the courts?

Mr. Freeman: The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 December last involving the Government's support for repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 showed a welcome change in law and procedure. That change, removing the burden from service men who could not sue for negligence, must be for the future and is certainly not retrospective.

Mr. McNamara: With regard to the atomic experiment veterans, as the Government have been conducting only a statistical exercise, may we now have a firm date when the results of that exercise will be given to the House? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although we accept that no degree of bullying should be tolerated in the British Army, there is great concern about the recent number of cases which have come forward? It is necessary that the Government should not only conduct an internal inquiry, but should publish the results of whatever inquiry is carried out and say what steps they will take to eradicate any possibilities of it in the future.

Mr. Freeman: Any complaints to do with the mistreatment of soldiers are always fully and properly investigated by the Ministry of Defence. I said on Second Reading of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill, the purpose of which is to abolish section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, that we expect the report on the survey carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board to be received by the end of this calendar year. That is our expectation.

Low-Flying Aircraft

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the notification and investigation procedures regarding low-flying aircraft incidents; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: The investigation of low-flying aircraft incidents is a centralised responsibility within the Ministry of Defence. All instances where there is a prima facie case of a breach of low-flying regulations are subjected to full investigation. These are very thorough and I am satisfied with the operation of this procedure.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate the efforts that he is making in his office to discuss with hon. Members many issues relating to low-flying aircraft activity which constituents raise with us. It has been suggested to me that last year, for example, the Ministry of Defence in response to inquiries by The Observer, stated that there had been no collisions involving American F111 jets. That subsequently proved not to be the case, according to the Minister's recent written answer to me. Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter, because genuine confusion seems to have been created in the public's mind by some of the public utterances of Ministry of Defence officials?

Mr. Freeman: Conservative Members are very proud of the great skill of our RAF pilots in low flying, and I am sure that that sentiment is shared by all hon. Members. The RAF pilots perform a difficult job. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in complimenting the RAF.


As for The Observer article, if the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question or to write to me about it, I shall certainly have the matter investigated and respond to him.

Sir Hector Monro: Although I accept absolutely the necessity for low-flying training by the RAF, will my hon. Friend study the low-flying areas and consider whether they can be extended so that the frequency of visits by low-flying aircraft can be spread rather more widely?

Mr. Freeman: It was the last Labour Government who, quite correctly, changed the basis of the low-flying areas. That change was implemented some eight or nine years ago and involved permitting low flying anywhere in the country except over large towns and air traffic control zones. I do not hold out any hope to my hon. Friend for any basic change in that system.

Mr. Home Robertson: How many complaints have been made to the Department about such flights taking place at excessively low levels or at excessive speed? How many of those complaints have led to disciplinary action against MOD staff?

Mr. Freeman: Over the past five years we have received approximately 5,000 complaints per annum from the public about alleged low-flying incidents. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the low-flying restrictions only permit pilots to fly down to 250 ft. I recently answered a question on the number of disciplinary actions taken. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details to refresh his memory of the answer that I gave.

Small Firms Advice Division

Mr. Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many small firms have consulted the Ministry of Defence small firms advice division; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Over 500 in the four months since my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for small businesses announced the MOD small firms initiative. The initiative is designed to increase competitive opportunities and to secure best value for money. The small firms advice division advises small firms seeking to penetrate the defence market individually, and through regional seminars, about MOD procurement policies.

Mr. Stevens: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. This service is a great encouragement to small firms in a wide range of areas. How many small firms have taken advantage of the opportunities offered by the MOD small firms advice service to get involved in defence research?

Mr. Hamilton: One part of this initiative is the small firms research initiative, which provides oppportunities for small firms with ideas for new and innovative products and processes to apply for a larger share of defence research funds. To date about 150 firms have been involved.

Mr. MacKenzie: How many of those small firms have been placed on the list set up by his noble Friend Lord Trefgarne for the purchase of equipment?

Mr. Hamilton: I believe that the figure is about 200.

Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend consider making it a requirement for prime contractors to pay their small

subcontractors more promptly? However good the work of the small firms advice service, the late payment of bills by main contractors to small subcontractors is a major cause of concern.

Mr. Hamilton: In principle the Ministry has no authority to intervene, because the matter is between the prime contractor and the subcontractor or supplier. However, there is a code of practice for competitive subcontracting that encourages prime contractors to pass to subcontractors payment terms no less favourable than those applying to the main contractor. Our payment terms are very good.

French Defence Minister

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the French Defence Minister; and what was discussed.

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend visited France on 9 and 10 March. He discussed a range of issues of mutual defence interest with M. Giraud. I have placed in the Library a copy of my right hon. Friend's opening statement at the press conference he held with M. Giraud.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Government's wavering attitude towards the INF talks the result of the French Government's influence, or are we seeking to influence the French Government in favour of a zero-zero option? Surely that would be a good price to pay to remove all intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe? How far does co-operation with the French have a serious influence upon our attitude towards those talks?

Mr. Stanley: The policy of the British Government has been entirely consistent—as has been the policy of the other NATO countries—towards the INF agreement. We are seeking to foster co-operation with the French in a variety of ways.
With regard to wavering, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the problem that he faces. Previously he has been campaigning enthusiastically against nuclear weapons, partly as a member of the national executive of CND, but now, presumably, he will be doing much more than wavering by campaigning enthusiastically for the Liberal-SDP Eurobomb.

Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government were to accept the Liberal party's advice to purchase the French M4 and M5 missiles the cancellation costs of Trident would be in excess of £3 billion? Given the present vogue for massage, would that be a gross massage of public expenditure?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the many unrealistic and impractical options that the Liberal-SDP alliance has put forward as an alternative to Trident. It is our assessment that if we were to take that route the time scale would not meet our needs and the costs would be substantially greater.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a source of particular pleasure that so much excellent progress has been made with the French Government in the recent talks? Does he agree also that this progress is suitable as a further platform for strengthening European security?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. We are encouraged by the progress that we have made with our French allies. We hope to deepen the dialogue that we have had with them.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not the case that the French would be happy and content to have a European nuclear deterrent provided that there was only one finger on the trigger, and that finger happened to be French? If that is what the Liberal-SDP alliance wants, why does it not tell us that loud and clear?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the command and control arrangements that are implicit in what the Liberal-SDP alliance puts forward are completely incompatible with our own requirements. The French prize highly the independence of their own deterrent, as we do ours.

Battlefield Nuclear Weapons (Europe)

Mr. Clelland: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effects upon the British Army of the Rhine of NATO's possible use of battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe.

Mr. Stanley: The effects of nuclear weapons would be entirely dependent on the number and the yield of the weapons used. However, the central purpose of the possession of nuclear weapons is to ensure that a potential aggressor cannot contemplate either conventional or nuclear attack. That policy has had more than 40 years of uninterrupted success in western Europe.

Mr. Clelland: Will the Minister admit that the decision was taken in Montebello in 1983 to modernise battlefield nuclear shells, which are potentially lethal to British troops at the front and which are already in the NATO stockpile? Does he agree that Ministers have misled the House on this issue over the years and that they should now resign?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is wholly incorrect. If he wants to pursue the issue, I hope that he will address himself to how the Labour party, with its non-nuclear policy, will provide any sort of protection for the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Mates: Is not the factor of the shorter-range nuclear weapons in Europe one of the most important aspects of any agreement to be reached on INF? Would we not be wrong to go ahead blindly into an INF pact without addressing the problem? Will my right hon. Friend be reassured by the fact that most people in Britian are just as worried about the Russian preponderance of small-sized nuclear weapons as they are about medium ones?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. It would certainly make no sense at all to enter into an INF agreement if we did not introduce some constraints over the shorter-range Soviet systems, in which the Soviet Union has an enormous superiority and which it can use perfectly well to cover those targets that are currently covered by its long-range INF forces. That is why we have made it quite clear that collateral constraints on some of the short-range systems are an integral part of any sensible INF agreement.

Mr. Douglas: That is nonsense. You will regret saying that, Stanley.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Douglas: He did not mean that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the Minister meant.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that had it not been for Dan Plesch's work under freedom of information legislation in the United States of America, Britain would never have known of the modernisation programme that has taken place? Is he aware that I have a book with me that sets out three years of ambigous answers from Ministers and ambigous letters to individual hon. Members, all in the language of ambiguity and all trying to deny that the modernisation process has been undertaken? Why is it that the Government have sought to mislead Parliament for three and a half years in this way? Why did they not tell the truth after Montebello?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is talking absolute nonsense. The results of the Montebello meeting were set out in a public communiqué that has been in the Library of both Houses for over four years.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no use by NATO countries of battlefield nuclear weapons or any other weapons unless they are attacked first, and that that is the whole basis of NATO's strategy?

Mr. Stanley: I fully agree with my hon. Friend The whole essence of the possession of nuclear weapons is to provide an essential element of deterrence. That is the whole philosophy, and it has worked in theory and in practice for more than 40 years.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman may have made an error earlier when he said that the agreement on short-range weapons was an integral part of INF negotiations. Would he like, on consideration, to withdraw that statement? Does the point that he made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), that no decisions have been made, as far as British forces are concerned, to modernise after the Montebello agreement, also apply to the weapons that are currently owned by the United States but which are in British care at the moment, namely, shells? Have they been modernised? Have any British forces been engaged in any exercises using modern shells?

Mr. Stanley: Dealing with the second part of the lion. Gentleman's question first, the answer that I gave applies to nuclear weapons that are British-produced and, therefore, in British custody, and to American-produced weapons that are assigned for service with British forces. As far as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is concerned, nothing that I have said today is different from what has previously been said in the House. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this point on 12 March. I repeat it for his convenience. She said:
An INF agreement must provide for restraints on those shorter-range systems which could he used to circumvent an INF agreement. These are the longer-range SRINF; in practice it means the Soviet SS12, SS22 and SS23. I believe that the draft treaty tabled by the United States will do that effectively."—[Official Report, 12 March 1987. Vol. 112, c. 461.]

Defence and Disarmament (Public Opinion)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers and types of representations on


different defence and disarmament options which he has received from members of the public since the beginning of the current year.

Mr. Stanley: According to available records, my Department so far in 1987 has received some 340 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and directly from the general public on defence policy and disarmament issues. Most of these are either requests for information or comments on aspects of nuclear policy and arms control.

Mr. Dykes: Did any of the comments and suggestions in the party document "Europe's New Detente" include the ludicrous suggestion that there might be individual sets of negotiations with individual Warsaw Pact countries on conventional arms reductions, excluding the Soviet Union?

Mr. Stanley: I notice that that publication has emerged only recently. I am not surprised that we have not had any representations in relation to it, but I expect that we shall certainly have some. I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It would be a ludicrous posture for any British Government to adopt.

Mr. Leigh: Given the nature of the Warsaw Pact, is it not laughable to imagine that countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia would be allowed to make individual agreements with any Western countries, given the fact that hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops are stationed in those countries to hold down subject populations?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Our arms control posture is served well by advancing on a NATO-wide basis. That is the only sensible basis on which we can pursue negotiations on behalf of the Alliance as a whole.

Mr. Corbyn: How many representations has the Minister had concerning the deployment of cruise missiles at Molesworth? Will he confirm that cruise missiles have been taken to Molesworth this week in advance of the Prime Minister's meeting with Mr. Gorbachev? Is this not a deliberate attempt to escalate world tension?

Mr. Stanley: I can provide no such confirmation to the hon. Gentleman. I am quite certain that the great majority of people in this country now recognise that it is only by the successful deployment of NATO cruise missiles and Pershing 2 that we now have the possibility of making real progress in getting rid of a major class of weapons.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in defence terms, the cancellation of Trident makes about as much sense as the Labour party conference decision in the 1930s to scrap the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that very important piece of history. The removal of the British independent strategic deterrent makes absolutely no sense whatsover, just as it makes no sense whatsover to attempt to resist and to deter the nuclear threat with conventional weapons, which is the absurd policy of the Opposition Front Bench.

Defence White Paper

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the 1987 Defence White Paper.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: No decision has yet been taken. As in previous years, however, I hope that it will be possible to publish in the spring, in good time for an examination by the Select Committee on Defence and a full debate in the House before the summer recess.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that acknowledged experts in the field fully expect the 1987 White Paper to be yet another exercise in papering over the cracks that have resulted from the salami-style process of cuts during the last seven or eight years of defence expenditure? Does he not feel that the time is right for a full-scale defence review before the election?

Mr. Hamilton: I confidently expect the Defence White Paper to spell out very clearly what are the Government's defence policies, which is more than I can say of the defence policies of the alliance.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend able to say whether the 1987 White Paper will refer to the excellent decision of the Secretary of State to reprieve the Royal Military School of Music? Is he aware that this is a great day for Army bands, military music, Kneller Hall and Twickenham? May I thank my hon. Friend, his colleagues and the Prime Minister for their interest in this great decision, which will uphold standards for future generations?

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on what will be in the Defence White Paper, but I can pay a great tribute to my hon. Friend for his powers of advocacy and persuasion in terms of reaching this decision.

Short-Range Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Terlezki: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the deployment of an increased number of short-range nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: We have no records of any such representations recently. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the INF debate on 9 March, NATO has called for a ceiling in Soviet shorter-range INF missiles in the 500 to 1,000 km range, with a United States right to match them.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely dangerous to negotiate only about medium-range missiles and not to take into account the short-range missiles—the SS1, the SS23 and the SS12, which have a range of 1,000 km? Bearing in mind also that in conventional weapons the NATO countries are outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact by 3:1 and 2:1 on land, sea and in the air, should we not take that into account to protect our country and our freedom?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is most certainly correct. As I said previously, it is part of the NATO position that the INF agreement has to deal also with the constraints on the shorter-range systems.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister of State clarify what he said in answer to question 10? He seemed to go further than the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence when he said that short-range missiles were an integral part—"integral" was, I think, the word that he used— of an agreement on intermediate-range missiles. Is that the Government's position? If they are an


integral part of that agreement, and if no agreement is reached on short-range missiles, presumably there will be no agreement on intermediate-range missiles.

Mr. Stanley: All that I said is entirely in accordance with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and also by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the House on 9 March about the INF. He said:
That is why part of NATO's negotiating position since 1982 has been that any INF agreement should include constraints on SRINF missiles of the 500 km to 1,000 km range, which means the Soviet Scaleboard and SS23 missiles. The NATO proposal has remained broadly the same over those years. It calls for a ceiling in Soviet systems of this range, together with a United States right to match them. It is an essential condition for any equitable INF agreement, but the Soviet Union has yet to agree it."—[Official Report, 9 March. 1987; Vol. 112, c. 40–41.]
That is the position.

Intermediate Nuclear Forces

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the implications for Her Majesty's Government's defence policy of the removal from Europe of intermediate nuclear forces.

Mr. Stanley: We are confident that we shall be able to maintain effective deterrence in the event of an INF agreement on the basis outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 12 March.

Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister of State ready to reconsider the answers that he has given to previous questions? Will he accept that an INF agreement is indispensable for getting a scale-down of nuclear weapons in Europe? While we are all concerned about the removal of battlefield and theatre nuclear weapons, that should not be a precondition for reaching an agreement on INF.

Mr. Stanley: It is certainly the case that an INF agreement is very important, but all my answers referred to the shorter-range INF systems, as the hon. Gentleman will clearly see when he looks at the text. I do not think that we need to take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about the importance of an INF agreement. If we had followed the Labour party's policy of not deploying ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing 2 there would be no INF negotiations today.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March 1987.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present at Victoria to mark the arrival of King Fahd. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall he attending a state banquet in honour of King Fahd.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister happy that, as a direct result of her policies, as from next Thursday cancer

patients on chemotherapy will be paying as much as £12 per script for their medicines or £33·50 annually for a season ticket? Chemotherapy may make a young lady, who is probably suffering the trauma of losing a breast, also go bald, yet the NHS charges her £16 for a wig. Is it not an injustice that the average taxpayer, healthy and sick, pays £2·20 every week for medicines, but only the sick pay twice? Will the Prime Minister immediately negotiate with the BMA for cancer to be added to the seven diseases which are already accepted by the BMA for prescription exemption?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has asked this question many times, I think probably of all Governments. He knows that the answer has not varied from Government to Government. It is extremely difficult to put that on the list of treatments— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]— which rank for special prescriptions, first because it is not easy to detect precisely when the disease occurs and, secondly, because many people would not wish to know that they have it. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about costs. May I remind him that the average family of four pays some £26·50 in taxation every week to support the National Health Service. That is very considerable. Naturally, most of the prescriptions are exempt—75 per cent. of people are exempt—but no Government have found it possible to add that disease to the exempt list.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement by the CBI of record order books and industrial confidence provides further evidence that only through the continuation of the Government's economic policies can we look forward to further economic growth and a return to full employment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the CBI forecast is excellent. It shows a healthy and balanced growth of exports, investment consumption, manufacturing output and total output. It shows that the Government's policies are working extremely well, not only to create new jobs, but, at last, to get down the numbers on the unemployment register. That is very good news and further expansion is in prospect, and therefore further falls in unemployment are in prospect.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the rise in the manufactured trade deficit to a £8 billion deficit this year,
is neither here nor there"—[Official Report, 23 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 33.]
Given that in her period of office manufactured exports have gone up by 15 per cent. and manufactured imports by 48 per cent., does she think that a £8 billion manufactured trade deficit "is neither here nor there"?

The Prime Minister: I think that what matters is the overall performance of the economy. The overall performance of the economy is excellent. I fail to see why the right hon. Gentleman should consistently try to keep out of account the performance of other industries such as the extractive industries of coal mining and oil, the construction industry and the service industries, all of which give the most excellent performance in the British economy.

Mr. Kinnock: None of which escapes the fact that the forecast for the balance of payments deficit, largely attributed to that manufactured trade deficit, is £2 billion


this year, despite the fact that the right hon. Lady has at her disposal very large oil revenues and a saving of oil imports. Will she accept that the CBI, even on the basis of the fortunate recovery recorded in its statement, still expects manufactured imports to go up 25 per cent. faster than manufactured exports? On the basis of the fact that already this year—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: —there has been a 6 per cent. revaluation in sterling, how sturdy does she think the recovery is supposed to be?

The Prime Minister: The recovery is very sturdy. That is the right hon. Gentleman's problem and he knows it.

Mr. Kinnock: Given the right hon. Lady's responsibility for putting unemployment up by 2 million and the fact that we are on record as fighting it that much harder than she does, all good news is welcome. Will she now answer the question? Given the continual deterioration in manufacturing trade performance, how sturdy does she think that the recovery is?

The Prime Minister: The recovery is very sturdy. I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should consider that those who work in the oil, coal and construction industries and in the great service industries, which make an enormous contribution to Britain's balance of payments, should be thought to have no right whatever to import goods. It is absolutely crazy.

Chequers (Official Reception)

Mr. Pollock: asked the Prime Minister when she last hosted an official reception at Chequers.

The Prime Minister: I cannot recall having ever given an official reception at Chequers, although there have been official luncheons.

Mr. Pollock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she give some thought to the possibility of holding some such function in the future, which would give an opportunity for providing generous supplies of Scotch whisky to invited guests, thereby enabling them to appreciate the most excellent qualities of that fine product, the bulk of which is distilled in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's concern about the Scotch whisky industry and I recall having visited a successful distillery in his constituency. I assure him that the whisky served at Chequers and at No. 10 is genuine Scotch whisky, and very good it is.

Mr. Bell: If the Prime Minister is to host an official reception at Chequers, will she consider inviting those who are unemployed in Cleveland, and will she then agree with them that, since Cleveland now has the highest unemployment and the third highest crime rate in Britain, there is a clear link between unemployment and crime in Cleveland?

The Prime Minister: I am very well aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will therefore have welcomed the latest unemployment figures, which showed that unemployment in all regions was down. I am sure that in his more honest moments he will welcome and support the Government's economic policy.

Engagements

Mr. Brinton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brinton: Is not the way to create greater enduring employment through prudent climate-setting by Government and prudent spending by Government? Is not the current CBI report, combined with the report that the Government have prudently saved £75 million on prescriptions, a good example of exactly the way that we should go?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The Government's task is to provide a sound financial background and a sound framework of law within which enterprise can flourish. We are entering the seventh successive year of growth. That is a very good record and shows the strength and rightness of the Government's policy, as confirmed by the CBI estimate and forecast today.

Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister agree that anything that the Syrian Government could do to assist in bringing about the release of Terry Waite and other hostages would materially affect attitudes in this country towards future better relations with Syria?

The Prime Minister: I assume that anything that Syria can do she would already be doing.

Mr. Terlezki: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Terlezki: As my right hon. Friend will be visiting Moscow and meeting Mr. Gorbachev, will she please tell him that, while it is very important that we should negotiate on nuclear and conventional weapons for peace, harmony and friendship in the world, it is absolutely imperative that he show his human heart, human face, compassion and sincerity by allowing the people in Soviet Russia the freedom of speech, religion and movement, that we take for granted in this country. [Interruption.] Then we could negotiate on nuclear weapons. Only when, for all people in the Soviet Union, the barriers are broken down, the Berlin Wall is demolished and slave labour camps are abolished can the people be free. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows why the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter.

The Prime Minister: I fully agree with my hon. Friend and can assure him that I shall, of course, be raising those matters under the Helsinki accords, which deal with the free movement of people and ideas. I am having a bigger correspondence than I have ever had from people who wish certain personal cases to be raised and from people who hope that I will raise the matter of religious freedom and freedom of speech for all in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Pendry: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pendry: Will the Prime Minister take time out today to look afresh at the guidelines for civil servants when asked by their Minister to give advice on such personal issues as tax problems? Would she care to comment on the report in The Guardian today which concerns one such case in connection with her Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: I see no cause whatsoever to comment upon a particular case. I am satisfied that the standards on both sides were upheld.

Mr. Hill: Did my right hon. Friend, during her discussions with President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, discuss our independent nuclear resources in France and the United Kingdom, and was it ever mentioned that the new European forum for discussion of defence matters should be the reactivated Western European Union?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course we discussed the independent nuclear deterrents of both the United Kingdom and France, reaffirming once again that they are wholly outside the present arms control negotiations. They are our last resort deterrent and are absolutely vital to our security and future. We did not go into the wider matter of the European forum, although I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made an excellent speech on it the other day.

Mr. Pike: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: The House having given approval last night to the Budget proposals, in which the tax concessions benefit the wealthier sections of the community the most and give little benefit to the poorly paid, will the Prime Minister indicate her concern for those pensioners who are receiving only their state pension, who are to receive a mighty small increase in April compared with those of pensionable age still in well-paid occupations, even if for only a short time, who will obviously be benefiting considerably from the tax concessions?

The Prime Minister: The tax concessions will benefit many people— factory workers, nurses, teachers, policemen, on average earnings and one in three pensioners. Of course, many pensioners do not only have the basic state pension, but have a second pension as well. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1979 second pension, SERPS, amounted to 95p per week for those who retired then. People who are now retiring and who have the

SERPS pension to add to the basic pension have an extra £16·25 a week. Pensioners, too, benefit from tax reductions.

Mr. Favell: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the Leader of the Opposition's most recent recipe for jobs is not dissimilar to that adopted by Derek Hatton and his friends for Liverpool——

Mr. Speaker: Order, Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend consider that she should adopt a recipe for jobs similar to that adopted by Derek Hatton and his friends for Liverpool?

The Prime Minister: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, our recipe for jobs is absolutely the right one. It has produced 1 million extra jobs since 1983 and is reducing the numbers of unemployed on the register. In addition, since 1979 we have spent £10·5 billion on special employment measures and are introducing yet another one, a new job training scheme, on 1 April. That will also help those who have not got jobs to get a training to help them find a job.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the reports emanating from Washington about the modernisation of nuclear weapons, which, as I understand it, have been denied by at least four Ministers? Would it not be reasonable to suggest that they have been handling the truth rather carelessly, or is it yet another example of this Administration's rather perverted use of the term "open government"?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. At the Montebello meeting of the nuclear planning group in 1983, NATO agreed both a major reduction in the number of its theatre nuclear weapons in Europe and the need for possible improvements to ensure the effectiveness of the remaining stockpile. This was clearly set out in the comminiqué issued at the Montebello meeting. Since then SACEUR has put forward his proposals for these improvements. These are being pursued with the individual nations concerned, but, as Defence Ministers have made clear to the House, no decisions affecting the modernisation of the theatre nuclear weapons in service with British forces have yet been made. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking the question.

Car Bomb (Rheindahlen)

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): At about 10.30 local time last night, a car bomb exploded outside an officers' mess at joint headquarters of British Armed Forces Germany at Rheindahlen. A NATO social function was in progress at the time. Thirty-one people were hurt in the explosion, 27 German and four British. Seven of them stayed overnight at the RAF hospital at Wegberg and all but three have now been discharged. I am glad to say that no one was seriously injured.
A higher alert state than usual was in operation at the time, without which the consequences of this explosion could well have resulted in much more extensive injuries. but large open areas crossed by public roads like the Rheindahlen headquarters have self-evident security difficulties. Further security measures are now in force.
An organisation calling itself the National Democratic Front for the Liberation of West Germany claimed responsibility for the explosion some hours after it took place. This claim is being examined by the German authorities who are leading the investigation into the incident and with whom our own security authorities are in close co-operation.
Our sympathy goes to the British and German service men and civilians and their wives who were injured in this incident.

Mr. Denzil Davies: May I also on behalf of the Opposition express our sympathy to those British and German servicemen, civilians and their wives who were injured in this incident. I am sure the Minister and the whole House will agree that this was a serious incident in that a terrorist bomb could be exploded actually inside the British military headquarters at Rheindahlen in the Federal Republic of Germany.
I have three questions for the right hon. Gentleman. He mentioned that obviously the German authorities will lead the investigation into the bombing. Will there be an internal investigation by our authorities to see how security can be improved? I understand the difficulties that the Minister has mentioned. Could he also tell us what the state of alert was at the time and whether it is now envisaged to have a higher state of alert?
There had been reports in the press and the media that a telephone call was made some time before the explosion to a West German newspaper. Can the Minister confirm or deny that that happened?

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we will be conducting our own internal investigation from a security standpoint. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not go into the details of the security alert state applying at any particular time, but, as I said in my statement, there was a higher than usual level of security alert at that time, and further measures have subsequently been taken.
As far as advance warning is concerned, we understand at the moment that no warning was received at Rheindahlen before the explosion took place. We understand that a message in English about a bomb at Monchengladbach, which is near Rheindahien, was received at the German Press Association shortly before the explosion, but the message was not fully understood

because of language difficulties. A further warning at Rheindahlen was received in German a few minutes after the explosion took place.

Sir Antony Buck: I am sure the whole House will want to associate itself with the message of condolence and sympathy which will now go forward to those who have been injured. Will the Minister agree that it is a matter of grave concern that there can be such an incident at a headquarters as important as Rheindahlen? Might it not be necessary to look at other headquarters with a British service input and a NATO role to ensure that this cannot happen or that there is a minimal chance of it happening at other headquarters?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the Rheindahlen headquarters is a very much more extensive complex than just a headquarters building, which is highly protected. As he well knows from his previous experience, the Rheindahien complex is a very broadly spread out site, through which pass a number of public roads. Obviously, we take this issue and this incident with great seriousness, as he asks, and we shall be examining closely whether there are lessons to be learned. As my hon. and learned Friend well knows from his own time in the Department, it is immensely difficult to produce total security when service men are, of necessity, spread over large areas and their normal civilian life has to take place around them.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that we in the alliance would also like to associate ourselves with the message of sympathy to those who were injured in last night's bombing? In view of the murder last week of an Italian air force general, there are suggestions that these two incidents may be part of a campaign by a loosely linked group of terrorist organisations who are targeting NATO installations and personnel. Against that sort of background, is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient international co-operation within the NATO nations to deal with this sort of threat?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I am certainly satisfied that there is extremely close co-operation, and has been for some time, between police authorities in the respective countries. Incidents such as this bombing illustrate the imperative need for that close co-operation.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, regardless of the very considerable difficulties, there will be great dissatisfaction and concern that such an outrage could have occurred at a headquarters such as Rheindahlen? Secondly, I endorse what the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said. I hope that the Minister will pursue with great vigour all the intelligence leads and resources that NATO can give us in our hunt for the people who perpetrated this monstrosity.

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the primary task of everybody who is engaged on this investigation is to try to identify those responsible and to bring them to justice. My hon. Friend's point about security arrangements at Rheindahlen is certainly well taken.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am glad that there were no serious injuries. The Minister was right to make a statement, even though in Northern Ireland there have been 18 deaths since 1 January, and there were


three yesterday, without a word in the House. Whose job is it to pass on to the military authorities in Rheindahlen the information that new middle-class terrorist groups are emerging in western Germany?

Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the basic responsibility for that co-ordination lies with the security authorities of the various countries and the police authorities. We have our own internal arrangements, with which he will be familiar, to make certain that every available hit of information about terrorists that might suggest vulnerability to a particular group is passed on as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Derek Conway: The House is right to express condolences to those injured, and particularly to express concern that the headquarters at Rheindahlen should be attacked in this way. In view of this attack, and the recent one at RAF Akrotiri, where a higher state of alert therefore had to result, perhaps my right hon. Friend will need to examine the establishment of the units involved to ensure that no undue stress is placed on operational training so as to safeguard against the terrorist threat?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the dilemma that we face in the security of such areas, as to how much time, effort and manpower should be devoted purely to the security task. Inevitably that will be at the expense of normal training and operational work of the armed forces. That is the continuing conundrum that we face, and we have to give the highest priority to the security of our forces and the dependants of our service men.

Mr. David Young: Will the Minister pass on to the families of those injured the regret of both sides of the House about this outrage? Will he take on board the concern that we feel that, according to press reports, the car bomb was placed near an officers' mess where a party was going on, which suggests a great deal of internal intelligence going to terrorists? Will he look at that when he reviews the situation?

Mr. Stanley: It will be a high priority to establish who was responsible and to see how far they were assisted in carrying out this outrage by any information that they were able to glean as to what social functions were taking place at Rheindahlen that night.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend accept that" while it is right to react in such a situation and to have a full inquiry, it would be the greatest mistake to over-react?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's warning.

Mr. Thomas Torney: Will the Minister institute an inquiry into security arrangements not only at Rehindahlen but at British defence establishments throughout West Germany? I know from personal experience that it is simple to walk into these establishments. Is the Minister aware that German personnel used to be used in security in some of these establishments? Are they still used, and will the Minister look into that aspect to see whether it weakens security?

Mr. Stanley: We certainly employ some German civilians locally and we have confidence in those arrangements. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that the security of all United Kingdom military establishments is continuously under review. We regard every military establishment, whether in the United Kingdom, in Europe or further afield, as potentially vulnerable to terrorist attack of one sort or another. Regrettably, we live in an age where terrorism has become international and all military establishments have to be looked at from that standpoint.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1987 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. portillo.]

Sir Winston Churchill National Day

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the discontinuation of May Day bank holiday and to establish the Sir Winston Churchill National Day on or near to 10th May.
For the past 42 years, the people of this country have enjoyed freedom and democracy and peace and tranquillity—in contrast to other parts of the world where fighting and killing never stop, where poverty and slavery still exist and where freedom and democracy are never implemented. I have been privileged to share freedom, peace and democracy with the people of this country for the past 39 years and that is due to the dedication, steadfastness, resilience, patriotism and great sacrifices that the British people and their great leader, Sir Winston Churchill, made during the last world war. Sir Winston Churchill took Britain and its allies through the greatest war in history, and Britain won.
When I was a small boy still living in the Ukraine before the second world war I remember so well my father telling me that in Britain there was a man called Winston Churchill who liked to smoke cigars and who had great courage, foresight and dedication and the determination of a great fighter who believed in freedom and would never surrender. My father was right.
Sir Winston Churchill, throughout the second world war, and for that matter throughout his political life, never gave up. He fought not only for life but for the value of life and the British people came to realise the truth of his loyalty and the bond he formed. They cheered him when he and Britain stood together, but not alone.
I experienced slavery and oppression under Marxism-Communism, and many millions of people still do. I experienced Nazism, having been taught at school that Stalin was my father and later that Hitler was my fuhrer, when I was a slave. It was political indoctrination that made me think that I would never experience freedom and democracy and even wonder whether such things ever existed.
When I arrived penniless to Britain in 1948, I realised that I had arrived in heaven on earth. I experienced for the first time freedom and democracy, and all that was possible because of a man called Winston Churchill and the resilience of the British people.
This House, the mother of Parliaments, the cradle of democracy, still carries the scars of the second world war. Hitler wanted to destroy it, but it was saved by brave men of Britain, and Sir Winston Churchill was one of them. They saved it for us all to speak, to debate, to agree and to disagree and to keep the light of freedom burning. I am further convinced that I would not be here today doing what I do and speaking as I do, nor would there be right hon. and hon. Members of the House had it not been for Sir Winston Churchill who saved Britain from the Nazi holocaust and paved the way for the peace that we have all enjoyed over the past 42 years—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear things in the House with which we do not wholly agree.

Mr. Terlezki: The purpose of my Bill is to remind the people of this country time and again, the old and the young—especially the young—who do not know or who may have forgotten, that, when Britain was in the grip of

the iron fist of Nazism and was bombarded indiscriminately, a man called Winston Churchill, with his determination, courage and dedication, together with the British people, made it possible for us all to be free today.
I am not in the habit of creating more public holidays just for the sake of it, nor am I willing to do so. Some people say that we have too many holidays already, and I agree. My reason for seeking to discontinue the first Monday in May as a national holiday and nominating 10 May or near to it as Sir Winston Churchill national day is that that is the day when he became Prime Minister of Britain in 1940. Furthermore, it is my heartfelt desire to establish a permanent reminder to the British people, some of whom tend to take freedom and democracy for granted, that had it not been for a man called Winston Churchill who made it possible for them all to live in a free and democratic Britain, the alternative would have been tyranny, slavery, extermination, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Treblinka, and Babi Yar.
I can almost remember Sir Winston Churchill saying that we had a rendezvous with destiny. Will we keep that rendezvous or spend our sunset years telling our children and grandchildren what it was like when men were free? What will our answers be when we are asked, "Where were you when freedom was lost?" and, "What did you find that was more precious to you than freedom?"?
Nothing must be more precious to us than freedom. It is like fresh air: if one has not got it, one misses it. I know that. That is why I ask the leave of the House to bring in my Bill and why I ask the House to give that Bill its full support and remind the people of this country, the old, the young and the generations still to come, of Sir Winston Churchill, his steadfastness and courageous leadership in the hour of this country's greatest peril. He captured the hearts and imagination of the people and saved Britain from Nazi slavery. In return we should give him a place in British history as the greatest freedom fighter in modern times.

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the motion?

Mr. Nellist: Yes, Sir.
If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, (Mr. Terlezki) had been arguing for an extension to statutory holidays, this House would undoubtedly have welcomed it. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, Britain has the lowest number of public holidays, in the whole of Europe, apart from the Netherlands. We have eight statutory days, but some countries have almost double that. Britain is in a minority in Europe in not having legal minimum standards of holiday entitlement for those in work. In many cases, the average allowed in Britain by employers is a week less than that given in many other EEC countries. Together with longer average hours of work and lower rates of pay, those facts knock on the head the Tory idea of lazy British workers.
Along with a lower retirement age and a shorter working week, an extension to public holidays would have been a useful step towards seriously reducing unemployment, or sharing out more equitably the available work. However, that was furthest from the hon. Gentleman's considerations.
Many Tories equate May day with tanks parading through the streets of Moscow. That is about as correct as slandering all Catholics with the Spanish inquisition. To set the record straight, the origin of May day was in 1886 in America when 350,000 workers in more than 11,000 establishments downed tools in a demand for an eight-hour day. It is a scandalous indictment of capitalism that in many industries in this country, such as bakery or the retail trades, that demand is still unfulfilled 101 years later. The centre of that movement was in Chicago, which was the fastest growing city of its day, the Mexico City or Caracas of America. It had a huge, developing factory system in which workers worked for between 10 and 18 hours a day.
In 1868, the United States passed an eight-hour law, but during the next decade and a half it was enforced only twice. That is only marginally worse than this Tory Government's enforcement of the Wages Council Act 1979. In the autumn of 1885, one of the workers' leading union organisations, the knights of Labour, planned rallies and demonstrations for the following May to enforce a law that the employers, especially the railway barons, treated with contempt, The slogan of the day was, in the words of one of the songs of that movement,
8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will.
Those words are almost identical to those used by British trade union leaders of the time, such as Tom Mann of the engineers, who was born and bred in Coventry.
On 1 May 1886, the first national general strike in American history took place. As a direct consequence, more than 500,000 workers saw their hours of work substantially reduced—in many cases down to an eight-hour day with no loss in pay.
The employers lost no time in preparing their revenge. On 1 May the Chicago Mail named two union leaders and stated:
Mark them for today. Keep them in mind. Hold them personally responsible for any trouble that occurs. Make an example of them if that trouble occurs".
That time was not long in coming.
On 3 May, 500 police herded 300 scabs through a picket line at International Harvester's. When the pickets resisted, the police opened fire and several workers died. A protest meeting was organised for Haymarket square and towards its end, in the pouring rain with only a couple of hundred workers left, the police arrived to break it up. A bomb was thrown. It was never established by whom and at the subsequent trial of the union leaders the prosecution said it was irrelevant and the judge agreed. Seven police officers and an unknown number of workers died in that assassination. Hundreds of union activists were arrested throughout the country and eight union leaders were put on trial. Seven of them had not been at the demonstration and the eighth was the speaker on the platform, so he could not have thrown the bomb.
Legality was never the aim of that trial; revenge was. The Chicago Tribune of the day gave the game away with the headline:
Hang an organiser from every lamp-post".
The trial was absurd: the jury even included relatives of the dead policemen witnesses and jurors were bribed; and the judge played noughts and crosses with young society ladies during testimony. A local business man summed up the employers' view with the words:

I don't consider these people to have been guilty of any offence, but they must be hanged … the labour movement must be crushed. The Knights of Labour will never dare to create discontent again if these man are hanged.
International protests followed the inevitable verdict of this scandalous frame-up and judicial murder. Huge meetings were addressed in England and Wales by people, including Eleanor Marx, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde and William Morris. The city council of Paris protested at the "political crime" and when five of the union leaders were executed, a quarter of the population of Chicago turned out for their funeral.
From that day on, 1 May has grown to an international day of solidarity among working people. Its first celebration took place in 1890 on the slogans of "An 8-hour day", "International solidarity" and "Against militarism". As workers emerge from tyranny and repression in whatever country, they adopt that day as theirs. The most recent example is perhaps the most down trodden exploited people in the world—the black workers of South Africa, especially mineworkers who, in the past three years, have struck for the demand that May day be a paid public holiday. Now the hon. Gentleman wishes to change that tradition, which was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1978 by a Labour Government.
If the hon. Gentleman gets his way this afternoon and is given leave to introduce his Bill, which Winston Churchill will we be celebrating? Is it the one who said in October 1903:
I am an English Liberal. I hate the Tory Party, their men, their words and their methods."?
Is it the Home Secretary, who personally drafted troops into the South Wales coalfields in 1911? Is it the Secretary of State for War who in 1920 called for military intervention in Russia? Or is it the man who, appointed Tory Chancellor in 1924, yet without rejoining the Tory party until the following year, put Britain back on the gold standard, which led to increased export prices and substantial wage cuts? Is it the man who advocated the use of tanks, machine guns and armoured cars during the general strike of 1926? Or is it the prolific writer who, in the 1939 editions of his books "Step-by-Step" and "Great Contemporaries", wrote about Hitler's rise to power:
The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate or overcome all authorities or resistance which barred his path…I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped that we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations.
That is the same Churchill who echoed the same unbounded approval as Tory newspapers of the day of the rise of Mussolini and Franco.
While Fascism was carrying out the physical elimination of workers' organisations, many sections of the British ruling class gave it their support. Only when it began to encroach on British capitalist markets and areas of influence did Churchill and others change their tune. For them, not for my hon. Friends, the war was about prestige and global influence, not the methods of Mussolini and Hitler. Those who died, including more than 20 million Russians and hundreds of thousands of Allied troops, genuinely abhorred Fascism.
Churchill's place will never be missing from the history books, although the interpretation of his importance will no doubt change. If the House genuinely wants to commemorate and commiserate with those who fell, it


could do worse than organise an additional public holiday for the millions of unsung heroes who have died consistently opposing Fascism over the past 65 years.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at comencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 80.

Division No. 124]
[4.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Ashby, David
Hickmet, Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Hill, James


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hind, Kenneth


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hirst, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Holt, Richard


Batiste, Spencer
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Best, Keith
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jackson, Robert


Blackburn, John
Jessel, Toby


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Boscawen, Hon Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Knowles, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Latham, Michael


Browne, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Budgen, Nick
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
McCrindle, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Conway, Derek
McQuarrie, Albert


Coombs, Simon
Malone, Gerald


Cope, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Sir Carol


Couchman, James
Maude, Hon Francis


Dorrell, Stephen
Merchant, Piers


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Emery, Sir Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Fallon, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Neale, Gerrard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Norris, Steven


Franks, Cecil
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Gale, Roger
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pollock, Alexander


Glyn, Dr Alan
Portillo, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorst, John
Raffan, Keith


Gow, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rhodes James, Robert


Grant, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Greenway, Harry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gregory, Conal
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rowe, Andrew


Grylls, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hannam, John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Harris, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayes, J.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Shersby, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Thurnham, Peter


Speed, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Speller, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Terlezki, Stefan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Peter Bruinvels and


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. John Watts.


NOES


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ashton, Joe
Lamond, James


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barron, Kevin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Madden, Max


Blair, Anthony
Marek, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Maxton, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Michie, William


Caborn, Richard
Mikardo, Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Nellist, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Clarke, Thomas
O'Brien, William


Clay, Robert
O'Neill. Martin


Clelland, David Gordon
Park, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Crowther, Stan
Pike, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Raynsford, Nick


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eadie, Alex
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Eastham, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mark
Snape, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Foster, Derek
Straw, Jack


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Garrett, W. E.
Torney, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winnick, David


Haynes, Frank



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephan Terlezki, Sir Anthony Grant, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Anthony Kershaw. Sir John Stradling Thomas, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. John Watts and Mr. David Atkinson.

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL NATIONAL DAY BILL

Mr. Stephan Terlezki accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the discontinuation of May Day bank holiday and to establish the Sir Winston Churchill National Day on or near to 10th May: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(2) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Education

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is with great pleasure that I commence what one gathers will be a lengthy debate on the Consolidated Fund. My pleasure is mixed with relief because every few years I hazard a chance in the ballot and usually end up making a 'nocturnal contribution. My pleasure in initiating this debate is doubled, therefore, by the unfortunate experiences of the past.
Education is a vast and important subject. I shall not range over it all, but shall fix on specific parts and, I hope, leave time for other hon. Members to participate in what is surely one of the most relevant debates that we can hold at this time. I shall deal with two aspects, both of them of national significance, although the first is of considerable local significance to my constituency of Leominster. I shall deal first with school closures, about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken in the past. School closures are of particular relevance to my constituency in terms of the future of rural schools. I shall deal secondly with teachers' pay and conditions, because this debate could not take place without talking about them.
In referring to school closures I shall emphasise rural schools in particular. I immediately declare my constituency interest because my constituency is one of the largest in south and central England, comprising 800 square miles and having within its circumference the grand total of one traffic light.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Ha, ha.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I see that my hon. Friend from Oxfordshire is bursting with merriment. Perhaps there are a few more traffic lights in Banbury. Nevertheless, it is a very pleasant constituency.
The education authority responsible for my constituency and the Hereford and Worcester county council remain, I am proud to say, Conservative-controlled. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, and heed the fact, that Conservative-controlled areas such as mine feel strongly about some of the actions that the Department of Education and Science is rumoured to be thinking about—I say that advisedly.
Councillor David Muffett, the chairman of the Hereford and Worcester education committee has shown himself to be a champion of the small school. Pursuant to the injunctions of the Department of Education and

Science, my local authority has been conducting a review. I am delighted that Councillor Muffett and his working committee have recommended that there should be no closures in the rural west, an area about which my constituency and I are particularly concerned. I am extremely relieved. Under the review, no fewer than two secondary comprehensive schools, two sixth forms in two other comprehensive schools are threatened with closure and numerous primary schools could be affected.
The Government and my hon. Friend the Minister of State should note some aspects of this review. I must say in their defence that this exercise is necessary whoever is in government. Both sides of the House are bound to ensure that the great amount spent on education—I shall not quibble about how much is spent here or how much there—is spent in the best interests of pupils.
In talking about closures, there must be a certain balance. I should like to give what is perhaps a slightly extreme and personal example. Obviously, every closure is a battlefield and every Member of Parliament becomes involved in virtually every campaign on closure. The first one in which I was involved concerned a small village school in my constituency in 1975 when Labour was in government. I pursued the matter right through to the then Minister of State, Department of Education and Science and I thought that I argued my case as well as most hon. Members could. But I found that I could not argue that the continuation of a school which then had 16 pupils, and whose population was to come down to 14 pupils, was a good thing. There must be a balance.
There is another side to the coin. Bearing in mind the pronouncements in recent years by the Department of Education and Science, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to beware of the sweeping macro solution, whether it comes from White Papers or from beautifully named circulars or is the result of a numbers game, appropriately played by that distinguished body, the Audit Commission. When I mention that name, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends shudder at the thought of the effects if some of its numbers are applied strictly and dogmatically and, perhaps above all else, if the case involving the numbers on which we settle is not argued with the British public and won. I do not think that we have embarked on that yet.
I said that each school represents an individual battlefield. I do not want to heighten the nightmare for the hon. Friend the Minister, but I must point out that 4,000 rural primaries and comprehensive schools could be affected. There are 2,000 village schools with fewer than 50 people. Many comprehensives, including Tenbury high school and Weobley high school, have well under the sacred numbers game mark of 900 pupils. Whatever we do in the House, we have to sell our case. In doing so, we must learn more about the economic, educational and social factors involved before we put up the backs of the entire rural world.
Hereford and Worcester county council, as part of its review, is commissioning a report on rural secondary schools from Warwick university. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who is in his place, and I are pleased to hear that. We know that our country will have something on which to base future decisions and will perhaps have a much better input when it comes to influencing the Department of Education and Science. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have shown that they have some sympathy with my comments.
I would like to quote a press release issued by Conservative central office, which contained remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister during her recent visit to Truro during the by-election campaign. That release is dated Thursday 19 February and it shows her general support for the points I am trying to make today. I wish to quote those comments because I believe that my hon. Friend may have something to say about them when she replies. The press release stated:
We are aware that there is concern in Cornwall and throughout Britain about the future of many rural schools and particularly about the effects of the Government's circular on the viability of smaller schools. We are re-thinking our policy on rural schools because we feel that parental choice is extremely important. We recognise that there may be a case for a more relaxed attitude to the size and future of these schools. There may be costs involved in allowing smaller schools to stay open. But we must also consider children—especially younger children—in rural areas such as Cornwall and the distances they might otherwise have to travel.
I have deliberately put that on the record because it is relevant—indeed, we will welcome any further comments about that from my hon. Friend.
The second aspect that I wish to discuss is teachers' pay and conditions. It is appropriate to discuss this at the present time. Let me say—I am sure to the relief of both sides of the House—that I will do my best not to be overly partisan, unless provoked. Frankly, I believe that the subject is far too important to be over-partisan. Surprising as it may seem, there is considerable agreement among the various parties to the dispute which should deny justification for the exacerbation of the present conflict.
Yesterday, in preparation for this debate, I re-read some of the long history of the matter. I went through the Burnham committee, up hill and down dale, from the days of Lord Burnham, I went through Acts of Parliament, Houghton's, Clegg's, Nottingham, Coventry and everything else. I have mentioned those quickly because I will not refer to them in detail—I am sure hon. Members will be pleased about that.
After several hours reading about the various matters, I reached the conclusion that it is utterly wrong that the Government of the day—dare I say, any Government—should not act to ensure that the present chaos does not continue to harm our children and our children's futures. Such was the conclusion that I inevitably reached having studied the regrettable mess involved.
The background to the problem is tortuous, to say the least. I will not recite the details, but will extract a few essentials. First, I wish to concentrate on the Burnham committee. In many respects that committee is at the heart of the matter. Hon. Members will be aware that it is virtually agreed that, for many years, there has been general dissatisfaction with the Burnham committee. The problem is not that dissatisfaction, but what to put in place of the Burnham committee. Moreover, the problem is how to achieve the necessary agreement to put anything in its place.
I wish to draw attention to three relevant reasons for such dissatisfaction—it is necessary to highlight those reasons to find the answer to the problem. The first is the old historical chestnut which, to a large extent, rendered Burnham inadequate and signalled its demise—the fact that Burnham could not deal with conditions of service,

but only with pay. That had much bearing on the present problems. In this, Burnham is almost unique in terms of a pay-settling body and its inability to deal with conditions has been at the root of the current problems. This has to be altered and there is a good measure of agreement among the parties involved about that.
The second problem concerns the multiplicity of union representation. For better or worse, there has been a constant history of disagreement between the various unions involved with the committee. Should the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) ever be in government, he will appreciate that such disagreement represents a negotiator's nightmare when trying to reach agreement.
The nightmarish aspect continues because of the problems connected with the employers' side of the negotiations. That represents the dichotomy of the control of education—that between national and local government. That is a subject for a one-and-a-half-hour debate in its own right. For the purposes of this debate, however, we must accept the present position. It is always likely—it has been the case since May 1985—that there is different political control of the employers' side whoever is sitting where in this House. Should the Government of the day not control the employers' side of the Burnham committee, that is bound to create friction, especially when the ideologies of the various parties in the House are so different.
In addition to the national and local friction, there is the friction between the local authority representatives. They are politically divided and must cope with the additional pressure in negotiations of keeping in either with the Government of the day or with the Opposition. They attempt to play the national game as well as trying to deal with the future of education. That is not easy. Everyone must accept that this system should be changed.
I wish to give some relevant quotations covering a time span that is also relevant to illustrate how long the problem has continued. Successive Governments have had a desire to play a role, to a greater or lesser extent, in Burnham. Successive Governments have been increasingly concerned with the pay negotiations because of the increasing financial constraints that are involved when the country's economy is increasingly under pressure.
In 1963 the late Sir Edmund Boyle, Minister of Education, and hardly a person who could be called one of the more desperately partisan elements of the House, rejected the Burnham committee and set in train the arrangements that were in existence for Burnham until a matter of weeks ago. He said:
In essence, the Burnham Committee's provisional agreement seemed to me to have got its priorities and thus its balance wrong. It gave too much weight to the young and inexperienced teacher and too little to the older … It rewarded insufficiently those who have the prime responsibility for organising the life and work of the schools. In short, it seemed to me that it was not just the details but the whole strategy…which was wrong."—[Official Report, 25 April 1963; vol. 676, c. 431.]
That illustrates the time span of this problem. In my view, if the Minister of State or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made such a statement right now, it would be just as relevant. There seems to he an awesome prophetic quality in that quote. That speech led to the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1963, passed by a Conservative Government on an interim basis and then led to the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 passed by the


then Labour Government. Indeed, since that time, successive Governments have implemented the new Burnham structure. It led to the Government's involvement in the Burnham committee via the so-called "concordat" which dictated the weighted vote, the veto and everything else with which hon. Members are extremely familiar.
An eminent Member of another place, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when speaking on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in another place on 9 February 1987, touched on the union differences, which are an admitted fact. I do not claim that Lord Houghton is generally in support of what I am saying but I shall quote one part——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not quote directly from the speech of a Member of another place.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I was becoming carried away by my quotations. My hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that the quote from Lord Houghton's speech was to be my final quotation.
Lord Houghton made it clear, with all his experience, that it is not a good basis for negotiation to have a body representing staff within which there are political and ideological differences, not to mention a different emphasis in militancy. Lord Houghton said that it was with a great sadness that he felt obliged to make that comment. He made it clear that the business had to be sorted out, that seven voices were far too many, that an interim solution was proposed and that, perhaps, most important, a permanent solution still lay ahead.
In the light of those important words it seems that the joint negotiating committee that emerged from the Coventry and Nottingham negotiations and those that took place elsewhere is an inadequate solution and must be reconsidered.
I have referred already to the concordat and to the spring of 1985. Whatever he the merits, it seems utterly wrong, if not downright asinine, that about half way through a four or five year dispute with serious implications for the future of education, central Government, following repudiation of the concordat, should be excluded from participation within the Burnham committee. For many years the concordat had rightly allowed the Government to participate, and the exclusion augured badly for the future. It was an example of a lack of responsibility or of over-enthusiasm following the takeover of political control of the Burnham committee by those whom Opposition Members support.
Everything that I have said is relevant to present and perhaps even more relevant to the future. First, we must get away from the ghastly past. I have tried to underline the fact that the past is ghastly and that we must get away from it.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Hear, hear.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am glad to hear that the Liberal party has an opinion on these matters. It has not had responsibility for anything for many years, and perhaps it will not have any in future. That being so, it can laugh at just about everything that my right hon. and hon. Friends and Labour Members say about serious topics. We deserve from Liberal Members a little more than laughter. It

would be more appropriate if they acknowledged the faults of the past. It would be encouraging—we would be lucky if this were to happen—if we were to hear a few of the things that they have in mind on this score.
We must take a realistic and objective view. For better or worse, the Burnham committee is dead. We shall not return to anything like it. It is important that that is underlined. Secondly, there has been a fair and generous pay offer, which will soon be in effect. We can argue about the details and the structure, but that must he done in an atmosphere of peace. The first priority is that that should be done through the right national negotiating machinery.
The action of some of the unions will get us nowhere. I think that it stems—I am not trying to be emotive or emotional—from frustration about pay and conditions, and that can be attributed at least in part to the actions of some of the unions over the years. Their present stance will exacerbate differences, cause friction with parents and harm children.
There is no option but to have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the future machinery. I think that the entire House should accept that my right hon. Friend is only too willing to talk. I am sure that he wants to establish suitable machinery for the future. As a human being, he probably wants to get these matters off his back and get on with dealing with the future of education.
The public expect and deserve progress. They are entitled to greater cohesion than has been shown in years past when the vital issue of education has arisen. It is up to us in this place to give them a better future.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), with some interest. I must congratulate him on two instances of refreshing candour. Two sentences will be prominent within the Hansard report of his speech that we shall remember in future. First, there is his blunt and candid recognition of the past—his Government's past in education—which he described as "ghastly". That will be the burden of the speech that I am about to make. I shall give him some figures to go home with.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that it is time that we got out of this ghastly mess. I could not agree more. The ghastly past in education has been created by the Government over the past seven years.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Not only the present Government.

Mr. Ashdown: It is not good enough to go back to 1979——

Mr. Thompson: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: I have a good deal to say but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I make it clear that I shall not give way a second time.

Mr. Thompson: I understand that the past in education goes back at least to 1960, when I started teaching. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was right to describe the past in education as "ghastly". To try to pretend that that situation has


occurred only in the past few years is a travesty, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) must acknowledge that.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to the rest of my speech. I believe that the past in education is ghastly, and that it has been especially ghastly over the past eight years. I say that—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit tight and listen to some of the figures that I am about to produce. If he feels like making a speech countermanding them or questioning them, he may have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: No. I have given way once already and I made it clear that I would not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has just made a 25-minute speech, and he has had the opportunity to advance his arguments.

Mr. Temple-Morris: It is a quick point.

Mr. Ashdown: I do not wish to be discourteous, but the hon. Gentleman has made a 25-minute speech and I think that the time has come for me to advance my arguments. I have given way once and I have made it clear that I shall not give way again.
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that we shall remember is his contention that we cannot afford to invest in education because the economy is under pressure. We have just finished a four-day debate on the Budget, during which Opposition Members argued that the economy is under pressure. To this charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that it was in wonderful condition. The hon. Member for Leominster cannot have it both ways. If the economy is under pressure, there will have to be spending constraints, which means that the burden of the Budget debate amounts to nothing. Alternatively, the economy is not under pressure, which means that the Government can invest in education for the future.
When we talk about policy we should not listen to promises. Instead we should examine the record. The Bible states:
Ye shall know them by their fruits".
Some of the "fruits" should be catalogued for the benefit of the Minister of State, who is to reply. Since 1980, 1,791 schools have been closed.
What about the state of our schools? Twenty four thousand schools—about 66 per cent. or two thirds of the total—need substantial repairs or substantial decoration. That is the present position. One in three schools have leaking roofs, one in four schools have outside lavatories and one in five schools are overcrowded. Her Majesty's inspectorate report of 1984—I can take no more objective view than quoting it—states:
Many of the country's schools are in a sorry state of repair and getting worse.
That is the legacy that the Government have left our schools.
The level of truancy in Britain is rising. One hundred thousand pupils regularly play truant. If Conservative Members wish me to put that information into terms that they will understand, that is equal to the populations of 50 full comprehensive schools regularly playing truant. I remind hon. Members that the crime figures published the

other day stated that the peak age for offenders is 15, at a time when 100,000 children regularly play truant. A total of 141 schools have been forced to drop special subjects for less able, handicapped children because of lack of resources.
On average a child in a private school has 10 books. In state schools children have on average fewer than half that figure—slightly less than 5 books per child. Only two authorities in the whole of Britain—incidentally, both of them are London boroughs—provide enough books to meet the international standards that govern or at least, advise on such matters.
Last week, I asked the Minister of State about the GCSE. We discovered that resourcing for GCSE is almost a disaster and is producing something close to a crisis. Last week, I went to Bulmersh school in Reading. That school is not in any sense atypical. The teachers simply could not deliver the kind of resources that were required for rising 14-year-olds who are to take the GCSE next year. I was told by a master who is to take GCSE students through chemistry that there is one book between three students. Mock exam papers were withdrawn because they were inaccurate and gave a wrong impression. No further mock exam papers could be produced because, I was told, there were no financial resources to print them. The criteria for assessment of GCSE students of business studies were not even published until after the first assessment had to be made.
Our 14-year-olds who are rising towards taking GCSE are getting, as a national newspaper stated recently, a raw deal. That is putting it at its best level. At its worst, many are having their chances for the future completely blighted. When we talk about Government policy, it is fair to look back at what the Government promised. I have glanced through the Tory party manifesto for 1979. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might listen. This is its promise:
We must restore to every child regardless of background, the chance to progress as far as his or her abilities will allow.
I see the hon. Member for Leominister and the Minister of State nodding their heads. Let us consider whether that promise has been fulfilled.
Commenting on the same matter, Her Majesty's inspectorate's report for 1986 stated:
Disparities of provision within and between schools and, in turn, opportunities available to pupils, are widening.
They are widening under the Government, seven years after the commitment was made. The Government have not taken one step towards it. In fact, the disparities are positively widening.
Let us now consider higher and further education. It is reckoned that reductions in funding to universities will now mean that, to stay solvent, universities have to get rid of about 2,000 teaching jobs in the next impending period. University departments are closing and whole universities are having to amalgamate. Indeed, I am told that the figures show that about 20,000 academic posts have been lost. As a result of a want of £8 million, all research funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council has halted. The brain drain from British universities and institutions is reaching flood proportions. Eighty two fellows of the Royal Academy—Britain's premier research and academic brains—are now permanently resident in the United States.
But that is not my greatest indictment. That is that, in a period of 3 million unemployed, perhaps costing Britain between £18 billion and £20 billion a year, and with the


prospect that it will cost four times that amount, British industry is being held back because of a massive skill shortage.
Our high technology industries, upon which the future of our nation will depend, are now growing at about half the average world rate for high technology industries. At least one of the reasons for that, as any high technologist will say, is the skill shortage that is affecting Britain. There are 30,000 too few graduates for new technologies. Next year, Siemens, the West German firm, will qualify more people at all levels of high technology than will the entire British education system. There are more graduate applicants for first jobs in Taiwan than in Great Britain. Whereas 40,000 people in Britain——

Mr. Eric Forth: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: I shall not give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for my discourtesy. He will no doubt have a chance to make his own points in a moment. I allowed one intervention. I made it clear that I would not take another.
In Great Britain today, some 40,000 young people are going into apprenticeships. In West Germany, 90 per cent. of children aged post-16 go on to training and education. That compares with Britain's 31 per cent. who go on to post-16 full-time education up to the age of 18. The level of 31 per cent. who go on to post-18 full-time education is the lowest of almost all of our sister nations. It is even lower than the number that Portugal sends on to post-16 full-time education. Meanwhile, to meet the gap of skilled teachers in Britain, if the whole output of the physics graduates this year went into teaching—which they certainly will not do—there would still be too few to meet the needs for physics teachers.
The problem for teachers is even worse. Some 5,000 of our teachers—usually the best—have left the job to go to better-paid employment elsewhere. Our teaching force is demoralised and dispirited and lacks the commitment that it needs. I make it clear that I do not blame the Government for all that. The unions have their share of blame as well. But there is no doubt that 12 million lessons have been lost through disruption. At least a part of that disruption has been the Government's deliberately provocative actions in taking away teachers' rights to negotiate their pay and conditions without necessarily a limit on the Government's power. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know perfectly well what our policies are. We have said what they would be.
Education in Britain has been seriously damaged since the Government came to power. The Government claim that they have increased resources, if they are read as a teacher-pupil ratio. I do not deny that statistic. It is true that education resources per pupil in Britain have increased marginally, but the real point is that, with school rolls dropping, the Government had the opportunity, by maintaining spending, massively to improve education spending per pupil, but they have chosen not to take that opportunity. What a wasted opportunity that was. Education as a percentage of public spending has not risen. Even during the Secretary of State's term, it has fallen. Indeed, it now stands at 19·2 per cent. of public spending. That is lower than in any other OECD country. It is lower than Italy, Belgium and Ireland. The United States devotes about 24 per cent. of its public spending to education, and Japan about 36 per cent.
Education as a percentage of gross domestic product has again dropped under the Government, from 3·9 per cent. to 3·6 per cent., whereas the percentage for our sister nations is above 4 per cent. At the 3·6 per cent. level of GDP, we are significantly below the average of our sister nations. It is significantly less than the average for Austria, Ireland and Australia.
If the Secretary of State for Education and Science and other Members of the Cabinet believe that they should invest some of their personal finance to provide their children with the best education at private schools, why do they deny to other people the right to invest some of their personal finance in the education of their children at state schools? These are the bitter fruits of this Government's stewardship.
Many believe that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is using education much more as a vehicle for his personal ambitions than as a means of achieving something that will be lasting and useful. Many believe that he is using his ministerial post to drive forward his vendetta against local government. Whether or not that is true, it is assuredly true that this is a gimmick a day Secretary of State. The city technology colleges will do nothing to remedy the lack of specialist teachers in the inner cities. The interim advisory committee is his poodle to command teachers' pay tomorrow. Benchmarks were his next invention. He wants to centralise the curriculum, although 80 per cent. of it is already a common curriculum throughout Britain.
Does the Secretary of State intend to go over to the French system? He says that he does not want a state curriculum, but in an interview in The London Evening Standard on 17 March 1987 the Prime Minister said:
Don't forget we are also considering having a model syllabus which makes jolly certain that your youngsters are going to be taught some of the proper things.
Is that the official view of the Conservative party? The country would like to know.
The Secretary of State's policy is a gimmick a day. A gimmick a day keeps attention away from the real problems of education. Those real problems are slum schools, demoralised teachers, disruption in the classroom—for which this Government bear at least part of the blame—falling resources, the closing of universities, the widening skill gap in our industries and the yawning gap that is now opening up in terms of the opportunities that are provided for our young people in a two-tier education system, which means that the best education goes to the few who can pay, the rest having to put up with what is left over.
There is one step that we must take. We must begin to invest in education. That is not an investment that this Government cannot afford to make; it is an investment that they cannot afford not to make. Spending on education should be nearer that which is common in other nations. We ought to be aiming at 4–5 per cent. of GDP. We believe in that investment. To make that commitment now would produce the education system that this country so desperately needs.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this debate must finish at 5.41 pm. Therefore, I appeal for brevity.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: One must always listen with a strong sense of scepticism to Liberal spokesmen on any subject. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) scattered around statistics with the abandon of a hired guest at a shotgun wedding casting confetti. He has thrown them at an inappropriate target and it gives no cause for celebration. I shall cite just two of his points. He referred to the ghastly past and attributed it largely to Burnham.

Mr. Ashdown: No, I did not mention Burnham.

Mr. Bowden: I recall that Burnham was wished upon us. It was born to the Liberal party in 1918.

Mr. Ashdown: I never mentioned Burnham.

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Burnham in relation to the ghastly past. He also deplored the fact that there is a lack of training in technological subjects, yet when it comes to finding a solution, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done, by means of the city technology colleges, it is dismissed as a gimmick-a-day approach.
I felt my age the other day when I was invited by the old boys association of my school to sponsor a dinner in Parliament for the association. It was not a grand school of the kind that the Opposition are so anxious to wish upon the Conservative party. It was a small grammar school in the slums of London. To those who lived in that part of London the school offered a ladder of promotion. They discovered their strengths by means of the teaching that was offered to them. When I first went into the science laboratory at that school, I remember that a saying was inscribed on the wall. It has stuck very clearly in my mind. It said:
No structure without function.
No function without purpose.
It is as well to remember these three words, since they are the elements of education—purpose, function and structure.
Those of us who oppose the current educational nostrums and the modish educational theory that is propounded by education authorities such as the Inner London education authority are conscious of the fact that the educational priorities have been distorted or even inverted. The prime purpose of education is to educate children, not to employ teachers or to maintain buildings, important though that is. The second aspect, the function, is that teachers should work to a curriculum. The third aspect, the structure, takes into account the administrative back-up, the buildings and the education authority. We have indeed been placed in a ghastly dilemma over the last few years because these priorities have been put in the wrong order.
I continue to live in the part of London in which I was brought up. My children have gone to schools in the locality that I knew when I was a child. When I first qualified I taught at one of those schools. Then I became a governor of it, and subsequently I became a member of ILEA. I have wept over the fact that ILEA no longer provides the children of inner London with the same opportunities to find their place in life as existed 40 years ago when I went to Battersea grammar school. Many Conservative Members feel passionately about what has happened in inner London and in other education authorities that have been politicised. We believe that

education has become a political football. Therefore, we are encouraged by the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are pleased that a proper sense of vocation is being reintroduced into the teaching profession.
Education debates provide an opportunity for hon. Members to reminisce. I recall that when I first went to school the rigour of education, based on the classroom curriculum, was of great importance. It was through literacy and numeracy that one obtained the skills with which the other delights and opportunities of life could be enjoyed. Apart from the classroom curriculum, there was another curriculum. I refer not to a covert or secret curriculum but to a curriculum that demonstrated that teachers were committed to their pupils. They were prepared to give up time to referee games at weekends, to play chess with their pupils at lunch time, or to rehearse and produce plays late into the evening. That is what education was about. Alas, those opportunities no longer exist in very many of the schools in that part of London in which I live. That is to the great detriment of London schools, but, more important, it is to the great detriment of the children who attend those schools.
The hon. Member for Yeovil made great play of those who can and those who cannot pay for education, but it is more sinister than that. Those who can pay move out of the inner-city areas to the leafy suburbs. Many of the comprehensive schools in those suburbs are the kind of school that Conservative Members wish could be found everywhere. When people move out of the inner-city areas, they leave behind them pits of deprivation in the inner cities.
We shall still have to deal with that problem. If we as a party do not deal with it, no one else will. There is no evidence that the Opposition are able to deal with it in the places where they control the education authority. The efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce technological education through city technology colleges for those from deprived inner-city areas—where they can gain the skills that will give them the opportunity to proceed to work for Siemens or any other great organisation that requires that sort of skill—are a way towards that end.
I must confess that when I first came to the House and the abolition of the GLC was being considered I had grave misgivings about the abolition of ILEA, to the extent that I fought keenly for its retention. I did that, not because I had a great admiration for what ILEA was doing, but because I had an even greater fear of what might happen if it were transferred to the boroughs in which the various schools were situated. There was some benefit in inner-London boroughs being grouped together. There was strength that came from size and expertise that could be employed through that size. I feared for the children of Southwark if ILEA were to be broken up and they were to be subjected to the whims and wiles of a Southwark education authority, and I feared for the children of Lambeth if they were to be subjected to a Lambeth education authority.
In the intervening years, ILEA has not responded to the opportunity that was given by its being independent of the Greater London council and by having its members directly elected for educational reasons. That is something in which it failed to fulfil the opportunity and promise that was offered.
For that reason, we must seriously consider the future of ILEA: not because we want to destroy the structure, not because it is not functioning well, but because the future of ILEA and the purpose for which it is there is not being fulfilled. It is not giving the necessary skills, education or opportunities to the pupils that it is there to serve. I believe that there should be changes.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I can probably express on behalf of the small group of us who have attended education debates for some time a feeling of disappointment that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) is no longer spokesperson for the alliance. He brought a certain wit and charm to our proceedings and, as this afternoon's deliberations have shown, we may well miss that wit and charm from our future debates.
I should like to speak on one or two of the points that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) made. I realise that time is short, so I shall be brief and concentrate on a few small points. The hon. Gentleman rightly said—I do not say this in a critical sense; it is a somewhat trite comment, but an important and obvious one—that education is about children. That clearly must be right and we must develop a system in which we can give the best possible education to children. One of my grave concerns at the moment is the level of morale among those who are crucially important for delivering high-quality education—teachers. That brings us back to the themes that were developed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in his opening contribution about teachers' pay and conditions and the negotiating machinery.
I have felt for a long time that the Secretary of State has developed a risky strategy. It is risky in two senses. First, it is risky because it plays around with principles, rights and freedoms. In a democracy there is a basic right to bargain collectively with one's employer. I know that Conservative Members have said on numerous occasions that the Burnham machinery was not working. On that point there is some accord across the House and between employers, unions and the Government.
However, I fear an argument that then goes on to say that, because practice in one form does not work, a principle must be abolished. In this case, that principle is the right to bargain collectively. I would be happier with the Government's intentions if I could genuinely believe that we are dealing with short-term interim provisions. The record of the Government suggests otherwise, and I can understand the concern of teachers who feel that we are dealing with the long-term abolition of the right to bargain. That has led to frustration and industrial action.
That brings me to the second part of the Secretary of State's risky strategy. By allowing that frustration and industrial action to continue, the Secretary of State is responsible for the disruption that is occurring in our schools. He cannot impose a settlement and at the same time expect acquiescence or high morale from the teachers. That is an important equation that the Secretary of State has failed to understand. In a dictatorship—but not in a democracy— a settlement can be imposed, but we are not dealing with an agreement, because there is no consent. In a democracy and a system as sensitive as education, morale cannot be imposed on teachers. I fear

that, in the aftermath of this dispute, however it is settled, our education system will be damaged for a number of years.
I say to the Minister that we should be not just talking, but talking with the possibility of some movement on the part of the Government. The hon. Member for Leominster said that the Secretary of State's door was open. That may be right— I do not deny it— but if the Secretary of State's door is open, to maintain the metaphor, his mind should be open as well. He should be prepared to discuss and move. There will be no substantial loss of face for the Secretary of State, but if he moves towards the teachers there will be a substantial gain for parents and children in our education system. I urge him, even beyond the 12th hour, to think again about his proposals and think again about the implementation of his powers.
The hon. Member for Dulwich talked about the inner cities and described some of them as "pits of deprivation". I welcomed his analysis of the way in which the welfare state works and the extent to which it almost redistributes resources towards the middle classes and away from the working classes. That means that we need much more positive discrimination and much more direct action towards the inner cities. What has happened in my constituency, and in many other inner cities up and down the country, is that, because of the action of the Government, money has been lost in rate support grant that is desperately needed in the inner cities.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to the recent reports in the Daily Mirror on our education system. That report concentrated a great deal on my constituency of Leeds, Central and referred to the Lincoln Green primary school in my constituency, where 197 children are on the roll. The hon. Member for Dulwich talked about pits of deprivation. I put it to him—I am sure that he will accept this— that there is a link between the physical fabric of education and the quality of education. Whatever teachers do in a school such as Lincoln Green— I know that its teachers perform excellently—the quality of the building will influence the climate and the ability of children to respond. That is why we need to invest in building.
The Daily Mirror pointed out in its excellent report that Leeds city council, using its own resources, will overcome the problems of Lincoln Green and a number of other schools. The council is coming up with devices to fund the inner city. How much better it would be if we had a relationship or partnership between central and local government to fund our inner cities so that children in schools such as Lincoln Green should not have to face the problems that they have in recent years.
The hon. Member for Yeovil made a point in relation to research and the problems which are facing the Science and Engineering Research Council. It is crucial— recognise the problems—that the Government make additional money available for research in our universities and polytechnics. That is a crucial investment in the future of the country. It is an investment in our higher education system and an investment in our economy. The sums about which we are talking are small in terms of the overall budget but their meaning in terms of the Government's recognition of basic research will be important.
I talked about morale in our primary and secondary sectors, but morale in higher education is also low. If the Government could come forward with money for research they would, at a stroke, substantially improve that morale.


I hope that when the Minister replies she will give hope to our scientists. I remember that under the Labour Government of 1974–79, Conservative Members talked about taxation rates causing a brain drain. The only brain drain that we seemed to experience then involved pop stars and film stars. We are now experiencing a real brain drain of Britain's top scientists and potentially top scientists. The Government must act to stop that.
A Government's stewardship of the education system is measured by two criteria—their ability to maintain morale among those who work in the education system and their willingness to invest in that education system. On both criteria, the Government have failed badly. They have failed the country and our children. They have a deplorable record.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), first, on choosing a debate on education policy, and, secondly, on his success in winning first place in the ballot. That is particularly appropriate today after a substantial lobby of parents here and in Westminster Hall.
I congratulate the parents on the way in which the lobby was organised, and, in particular, the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations and the other eight organisations which, uniquely, came together to make it a successful lobby. I hope that they will go on lobbying for education. It is sad that in recent years resources for education in Britain have been given far too low a priority, as has the public's interest in the issue. I hope that those organisations will be successful in lobbying for education from now until the general election.
It is important in a debate such as this to pay tribute to the vast majority of our schools, their pupils and teachers. The vast majority of our schools provide a high quality education. Although all will lament the lack of resources, we should pay tribute to the high quality of work in our schools.
High quality education is fundamental to Britain's future. Britain's future prosperity will depend almost entirely on the skills of the British people, not on the skills of a small elite. It is incumbent upon us all to ensure that we confer on future generations the skills that will enable them to pay Britain's way in the world.
I do not want just to argue the importance of education in terms of our future prosperity. High quality education is fundamental if we want to live in a peaceful society. We must give people the knowledge and understanding to put fear in its place. We must persuade people that they can solve conflict by democratic processes. That means that we must confer on people the skills necessary to participate in a democracy. They must have the skills to evaluate information and to make choices and the self-confidence to speak up for themselves and genuinely to participate in a democracy. A good quality education is fundamental if Britain wants a peaceful democratic society.
Good quality education is equally important if people are to enjoy their leisure. Most leisure activities are enhanced and made more enjoyable by good quality education. The example that I often throw out at meetings is that even day-dreaming is more enjoyable when woven

with knowledge, ideas and information. Whatever one's leisure activity, good quality education is likely to enhance it.
Moreover, we are entitled to have beliefs and a philosophy of life. In developing that, most people need knowledge, information and ideas. I would argue strongly that Britain needs good education if it is to be a prosperous, peaceful and democratic country in which people can enjoy their leisure and understand their own nature.
The tragedy is that instead of making vast strides in improving education in recent years, many areas have slipped back and opportunities have been missed. The Government's oil revenues could have been used to improve dramatically the quality of education, but instead most has gone to pay for unemployment benefit. Falling school rolls could have been a golden opportunity to expand and improve our education opportunities. As a teacher with a class of 36 or 40 pupils, I was always told that my difficulties would be ended because falling rolls and smaller classes were not far off. Much of that opportunity has been missed. Far too many classes are still too large for the teachers to be able to do an effective job and for pupils to obtain full benefit from the education that they are being offered.
On many occasions the Government have pleaded poverty, saying that they could not improve standards because of the lack of resources. Yet in the Budget debate the Government claimed that things are going so well that they have money to dish out. They have taken 2p in the pound off income tax despite the fact that most people made it clear in opinion polls that they would much prefer to see that money spent on better services. Nevertheless, the Government are saying firmly that they are not prepared to put the money into first-class education.
Let me take one or two examples. When the Prime Minister was Secretary of State in 1972 she firmly set out the Conservative party's commitment to provide, over a period of 10 years, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. We did not get off to a tremendously good start, but at least up to 1979 we doubled the provision of pre-school nursery education. Since 1979, the improvement has been small. About 23 per cent. of children now have a genuine place in a nursery class or school. More telling is the fact that in 14 Conservative-controlled authorities since 1980 the number of nursery places has been reduced.
Many of my hon. Friends have been out this week, and will be doing the same next week, looking at pre-school education in Britain. All of them tell me what a marvellous job is being done in nursery education, but they also report that almost every nursery school or class has long waiting lists. Many people do not even have a nursery class or school in their locality.
In this day and age we should, like France, be able to offer a place in a nursery class or school to all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate she will give us some idea of the Government's proposals for expanding nursery education and making a reality of what the Prime Minister claimed in 1972 was a necessity.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster that we should not close the small village schools. However, it is also important to have the resources to keep such schools open as effective institutions. I should particularly like to see far more of them developed as community schools. I


am always happy when Ministers decide not to close these schools, but they must accept that when they turn down proposals for closure they must provide resources to keep those as viable schools rather than give the children who remain in the schools a second-class education.
I am particularly worried about class sizes. Although we have seen dramatic improvements in pupil-teacher ratios, well over 1 million children are still taught in classes with more than 30 pupils. I cannot see how good quality education can be provided in such circumstances.
I agree that the quality of buildings is essential. At least £500 million must be spent, almost as an emergency provision, to bring Britain's school buildings up to even a minimum standard. I recently visited Bradford and Sheffield and saw the appalling state of the school buildings there, caused not by neglect, but simply by lack of resources. Time and again the authorities have appealed to the Government, who accept the case but do not provide the money. Both cities have a substantial number of people in the building trade who are out of work who would be only too pleased to be working to put those school buildings into good repair.
We should also consider the question of books. I know all the statistics, but one has actually to go into a school and pick up a text book to understand the problem fully. I left the teaching profession in 1974, but I often see the text books that I used still in use. That frightens me because, particularly in subjects such as geography, many of the facts are out of date. I found a dramatic example of that when I visited a school in Corby and found a book with a large section setting out the importance of Corby as an iron and steel centre.
How on earth can children be expected to believe what is in their text books when they contain whole sections describing industries that have completely disappeared from their locality? It is important for text books to keep up with the very rapid technical changes that are taking place. In subjects such as geography we should not be content for expenditure simply to stand still. We must get new books and materials into our schools much more quickly.
I am very pleased that the Government belatedly came up with a little extra money for the new examination, but I am sure the Minister will find that very considerable problems remain over providing resources for its introduction. In some places, people may have opted for an especially imaginative syllabus without weighing up the full resource consequences. In physics and chemistry, for example, some schools are committed to introducing a greater element of practical experiments for continuous assessment, but they do not have the necessary equipment or resources. Even at this stage the Government must turn their attention again to the problem of resources if the GCSE is to be fair to the children and to lead to the educational innovation that many of us wanted it to produce.
I want to highlight one further problem—the number of youngsters who do not stay on at school or in education. I suggest to the Government that it is a scandal that so many youngsters leave education when they would clearly benefit from remaining in school, in sixth form colleges, or in tertiary education. In Tameside in my constituency, 24 per cent. of youngsters who get five or more good O-levels leave school and do not remain in full-time education. The Tameside education authority area is, sadly, one of the worst in that respect, but in many

authority areas where there is plenty of parental enthusiasm, and no poverty, the number of children who drop out of the education system at 16 is far too high.
I plead with the Government to come up with some system to encourage those with good O-level results to stay in education. In the past, many of them went into apprenticeships and then back into further or higher education on day release but, sadly, in many areas those apprenticeships have now disappeared. I challenge the Government to come up with a scheme to meet that problem. Unless we are prepared to introduce education maintenance allowances and to give the same financial encouragement for people to stay on at school as we give for them to go into the youth training schemes, we shall have a continuing, if not accelerating, drain on the number of young people who stay at school. They will continue to leave school far too early.
The Government should examine the status of education. They have dealt a blow to that status by the way in which they have dealt with teachers' pay and are dealing with student grants and resources for research. Youngsters in schools think that to have anything to do with education is to engage in an occupation and interest of which the Government do not approve. They believe that the Government approve only of people who go into the City and make vast fortunes through speculation.
The Government must turn the whole atmosphere round to promote a new belief in the importance of education. Only by doing that can they begin to ensure that we get the best out of our schools rather than a continuing decline in morale. Only by doing that will they ensure that we get the best out of our further education colleges and out of higher education in all its forms. If we do not give education its proper status, it will be considered something in which people become involved only if they are unsuccessful.
While the present atmosphere remains, our future is at risk because education holds the key to a prosperous, peaceful, democratic society in which people can enjoy their leisure and develop their individuality. Unless we put resources into education and accord it a genuinely high status, our future will be very bleak.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on introducing this wide-ranging debate on education. I am delighted to respond to it because hon. Members on both sides of the House have made some most interesting points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster wisely reminded me that his constituency was in Herefordshire. I recently visited Hereford and Worcester in the course of my ministerial duties. I was interested to learn that the chairman of my hon. Friend's local education committee,— who had no doubt studied the publication "Better Schools" and the draft circular "Providing for Quality" on which my Department has asked for comments— had recommended to his committee a no-closures policy for his county.
Such a decision is entirely at the discretion of individual local education authorities. My hon. Friend did well to draw the attention of the House to the importance of making such decisions with educational, as well as


economic, considerations in mind. That is extremely important. In some rural areas—where a long journey to school would be detrimental to the health of children and worrying to their parents—it is difficult to imagine children receiving education in anything other than a rather small primary school. However, authorities are responsible for ensuring that children at those schools can have the benefit of a broad-based curriculum within the constraints of primary school organisation.
Local authorities have an important judgment to make. That judgment applies to secondary schools, too. It is obviously sensible for my Department to offer advice on criteria—but not lay down definitive criteria—for the size of secondary schools. In Truro, I tried to reinforce my belief—and the Government's strong belief—that it is important for parents to be able to choose the school that they believe will be right for their child. That choice should have a high priority in our education policy. It is not possible to have a policy whereby some very popular schools are eliminated, thereby depriving parents of choice, and at the same time enable them to have freedom of choice of schools. This is an extremely important point.
The other point which my hon. Friend raised concerned the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act. I am very grateful to him for pointing out that the reason why something had to be done was basically the existing disharmony— particularly the differences between the teachers' unions. He was quite right also about the local education authorities, and I would point out that very often in the past it was not merely that local education authorities were of different political views from the Government; even when they were of the same views, it was not necessarily the case that in the negotiations in the ill-fated Burnham committee they were in agreement. Indeed, I was present on two occasions when that was clearly demonstrated.
We have been left in some disarray as far as our negotiations with the teachers are concerned. The unions want a new negotiating committee, and I understand that. The problem is to devise a committee in which we, and indeed everyone else, can have some confidence. There does not seem to be any point in setting up new machinery which is no more effective than the old machinery which we have just abolished.
Under the new Act, the Secretary of State is required to set up an interim advisory committee to consider school teachers' pay and conditions. At present, he has no choice. The committee will consult the unions and the local authorities before making recommendations for April 1988. The Secretary of State is then required by the Act to discuss those recommendations with the unions and the authorities before putting proposals before Parliament. Those discussions will inevitably have something of the character of negotiations. The interim advisory committee will bring a welcome respite, as my hon. Friend has so wisely said, with regard to the breakdown in sensible negotiations. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the arrangements set up by the Act are interim. The Act is due to expire in 1990 and can be extended beyond that date for a year at a time only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On that point, will my hon. Friend confirm, as I hope she will be able to do, that during this interim period the Secretary of State's door will

be open for informal discussions between the Ministers concerned, union leaders and members of the parent-teacher associations? There is a good initiative in Norfolk to try to bring people together. The unions are saying that the door is closed, but I believe that the door is open. Can the Minister confirm that?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am very happy to confirm to my hon. Friend and also to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that my right hon. Friend has reiterated that his door is open. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) would be wise to wait and see how many of the teachers come to see my right hon. Friend to discuss. I am sure that he will be very happy to see them and to listen with the greatest care to what they have to say.
I hope that the Act will be recognised for what it is—a temporary measure to make it possible to escape from a negotiating cul-de-sac. It is most important that it is put into operation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister say whether the order is going to be laid this week or whether the Government are going to delay so that we can have these negotiations?

Mrs. Rumbold: We are not intending to delay any longer than we have to, because it is extremely important that we get the orders laid in time to allow the back pay to go into the teachers' salaries. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen would not wish that to be delayed at all.
It is very sad that the hon. Member for Yeovil should have made such a destructive speech. It is a shame to come to the House and do nothing but pull to pieces the whole education structure. We heard nothing but a saga of destructive comments about education in this country. I share with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) the belief that there are many teachers throughout the country who work extremely hard, produce extremely good results and have a very important effect upon the life of young people in this country. So it seems to me to be an absolute disgrace that someone should come to the House and not recognise that.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No, certainly not; under no circumstances will I give way.
The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned truancy, which is interesting when one thinks of an authority which operates not a hundred miles from the House, where the schools are adequately resourced—indeed, according to an HMI report, in one case so adequately that the resources could be called lavish. The number of pupils is 900, the number of teachers is 118— an amazingly higher number than one can find in many parts of this country—yet it still has a problem because it does not have many children going to it. The reason is that the children are not motivated and do not want to go to school.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No. I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman refused to give way to anyone on the grounds that he did not have enough time, and I do not have much time either.
With regard to the general certificate of secondary education, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this new examination was introduced after long negotiations and discussions with the teachers' unions. They wanted


this examination very badly indeed because they believed that it was the right thing. The Government agreed with that and thought that the best thing to do was to get on with introducing the examination. We have done exactly that.
The Government have committed substantial resources to the general certificate of secondary education. There was £20 million directly, in 1986–87, for books and equipment, £100 million through the rate support grant in 1987–88 for all aspects of GCSE non-teaching costs, including books and equipment, clerical and technical support staff and storage facilities; £10 million of this is for books and equipment going to local education authorities directly.
I understand that there is some concern about training among the teaching profession. It is quite natural when a new examination is introduced, one that is so testing to both teachers and children, that there will be a settling-in period, but I do not and cannot accept that it was wrong to introduce this examination, because I believe absolutely passionately that it is for the benefit both of the children and of the teachers themselves. I suggest that it is very important that we concentrate on that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), who said that the prime purpose is the education of children. He is absolutely right; he has the priorities right. He is quite right, too, to draw our attention to the devastation of the grammar schools started by the Labour party and continued by the Liberal party at the present time where Liberals are in control of local authorities— as in Kingston, where I used to be the chairman of the education committee, in Sutton and even in Devon. So it seems to me that there is some point in asking Liberal Members just exactly how they are going to improve the standard of education throughout the country.
I want to say one or two things to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, on nursery education in particular. I understand the point that he is making, but I think it is important to draw to his attention the Government's belief that the devolved and discretionary basis on which nursery education is currently available is the best way to ensure the flexible and effective use of scarce resources. Furthermore, not every young mother believes that

compulsory nursery education is the right thing for her child. There should be alternative methods of introducing children to peer groups when they are young. This can be done through nursery classes, through nursery schools or through the very valuable experience of pre-school playgroups.
I am very glad to be able to say that the Government have been making grants, in particular to the Pre-School Playgroups Association. The Government make grants in excess of £400,000 and this year the DES grant was increased by 50 per cent., from £60,000 to £90,000. I was very pleased about this because I believe that that experience is extremely important to children. But 1 have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have heard from some of my own constituents expressions of concern that my own authority was planning to institute nursery classes attached to every primary school in the borough.
This would put pressure on mothers who choose not to send their children to nursery schools, because they would fear that they could not get them into the primary schools of their choice when the time came, simply because of pressure on primary school places. That is an important point.
A point was raised about participation rates for people of post-compulsory school age. Many figures were quoted but my figures come from good sources and show that participation rates for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in any form of education or training, whether full-time or part-time, range from about 65 per cent. in 1981 in France, Italy and the United Kingdom to 84 per cent. in Germany. The level of take-up by 16-year-olds in the United Kingdom undertaking some kind of educational training, including the YTS, was 87 per cent. in 1983. That seems comparable with, if not better than, the percentage for other countries. We are proud of that and are planning to increase it because we are concerned about what happens to young people after they leave school. We want to see that they have the opportunity to increase their skills and to have educational opportunities which will bring them into a better work force in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before announcing the next debate, I should inform the House that there is a mistake in the title of debate No. 4. It will be on the beef industry and not just the Scottish beef industry.

Orders of the Day — Sport

Mr. Tom Pendry: I welcome the opportunity for this debate— [Interruption.]— and judging from the "Hear, hears" from Conservative Members it is clear that I and my hon. Friends are not the only ones who welcome it.
Why has a significant debate on sport not been held since April 1977? At that time there was a debate on a sports White Paper which had been published some 20 months previously. This is all the more surprising since sport plays such a major part not only in the nation's social and leisure calendar, but in its economic life. For those reasons, it demands greater stature and prominence in this House.
Sport accounts for over £4·4 billion of expenditure each year, a figure that is comparable to expenditure on the gas or electricity industries. The Government's income from sport is now £2·4 billion from taxes and betting duty, yet only £545 million is injected back into sport through rate support grants, the Sports Council and the urban programme. More people are employed in sports-related jobs—about 376,000—than are employed in Britain in the manufacture of cars and their ancillary parts. Nearly 16 per cent. of the BBC's television output is coverage of sport and that is comparable to other networks.
When one looks at the diversity and the importance of sport in Britain, one wonders why it is debated so infrequently in the House. In the last debate, the two Front Bench spokesmen were so delighted at the opportunity to debate sport that they spoke for one and a quarter hours—over half the debating time. What they said, and especially the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), was worth listening to. This debate is the first in over 20 years to allow hon. Members three hours in which to display their interest in the sporting issues of today and in the problems associated with sport. With very little opportunity for them to support sport, it has been left to people outside to highlight and often to distort the problems of sport.
Just 13 days ago, at the Central Council for Physical Recreation's annual general meeting, the Duke of Edinburgh contrasted the arts with sport and said that from the sports point of view it is not a particularly happy picture. How right he was. He recognised the importance of sport to the economy and to British life by pointing out that on top of employing twice as many people as in the arts in Britain, more than 43 million hours of volunteers' time is taken up each year in helping sport. I do not wish to knock the arts, which are also under-funded, but these comparisons put the matter in a better context.
Among other things, His Royal Highness called for a stop on the selling of playing fields for development. I concur with what he said. In today's Order Paper, 44 hon. Members from all parts of the House have signed an early-day motion in my name on the subject. I hope that after today's debate many more hon. Members will do likewise. I shall return to that later in my speech.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the hon. Members who signed his excellent early-day motion, and many others who have not yet signed, are opposed to the disposal of even one more school playing field? Many are under threat but not one more should go.

Mr. Pendry: I am pleased to hear that intervention and I hope that many Conservative Members will press their right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to see that this practice is discontinued.
The Duke of Edinburgh highlighted other areas for reform, including a reduction in taxes and in the rate burden on non-profit making sports clubs. He called for reform of the administrative structure of sport, which he said should be streamlined. I shall later deal with those issues, but suffice it to say now that the lack of time available to us means that sports lovers like the Duke, rather than the politicians, must set the agenda for sporting issues.
At the CCPR annual meeting, Cliff Morgan delivered a stirring address which highlighted the emotion and the power of sport for good in today's tough society. In a plea to all of us he said:
Please don't sell our sport short. It breaks down the barriers, it unifies people.
As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I know that sport in Northern Ireland breaks down many of the barriers facing young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) can vouch for that. Cliff Morgan went on to say that in Britain, the birthplace of much of modern sport, there is still no Minister of Sport even though Lord Hawke, an old-fashioned Tory, commented in 1919:
Ministries for dafter things than sport had been set up".
I agree with that.
The most recent past Minister with responsibility for sport is the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) who recently wrote about his time in that post. In his book the Government's view of sport comes through clearly when he relates what happened when he was first appointed. At that time, he says, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said to him, "You do like sport, don't you?" One of his predecessors, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) recalled his days in the post. He said that he spent
four years … as a member of the smallest, most unimportant trade union in the House, the trade union of Ministers with responsibility for sport".
The Prime Minister's answer to my recent question calling on her to list the responsibilities of the Minister with responsibility for sport clearly shows the post's lack of stature. She said that her hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)
has special responsibility for sport and recreation and, in addition, supports his colleagues on planning, regional affairs, housing, inner city and gipsy issues."—[Official Report, 2 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 464.]
At a time of crisis for one of our most famous football clubs— Fulham— is it not extraordinary that the Minister responsible for sport is unable to speak out against bulldozers levelling the ground for housing, because that application may well be referred to him when he is wearing his planning hat? This crazy situation whereby the Minister spends only 20 per cent. of his time on sporting matters must be ended. Of course that is not the Minister's fault, but how can he allow a club that was established in 1879 with a stand, the Stevenage stand, which was built in 1905, to be bulldozed to the ground in this way? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) will expand on that matter if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have touched upon one issue facing football now, just as I spoke on football's problems in the debate 10 years


ago. Football continues to have its problems—although they are much overstated by the press— and is not helped by the Government's knee-jerk reactions being followed by ill-thought-out legislation. Our national game deserves more than that, and I should like to dwell on two ways in which the game can be improved. The first is an old hobby horse of mine because I introduced a Bill last year which ran out of time because of the summer recess.
The establishment of a football levy betting board could give real and continued financial support to the game. Last year the Government took £234 million in pool betting duty out of a total take of £550 million on football pools— a duty level of 42·5 per cent. The Royal Commission on Gambling, chaired by Lord Rothschild in 1978, thought that a 40 per cent. tax was then too high. By reducing the duty level to 40 per cent. and adding the money from VAT on spot-the-ball competitions and from copyright payments for football fixtures, more than £50 million would be available each year to benefit football.

Mr. Tony Banks: I ask my hon. Friend to compare the treatment that horse racing and football have received from this Government and from past Governments. Football is the poor relation in that respect, although it provides massive amounts of money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Pendry: I am trying to make that point, but I do not want to fall into the trap of knocking one sport or another, or the arts against sport. We must fight for a higher volume in the whole sporting area. The money that I suggest would accrue from the football pools through the football levy board would be invested in grounds, in new terracing and seating, in better refreshments, and new stadiums for the 21st century. We would have schemes that would attract people to football, to league clubs and to non-league clubs, and also to the rapidly developing game for women in this country.
The recent measures agreed between the Government and the football authorities should help to combat hooliganism. The membership aspect of the agreement has been highlighted by the press, but I believe that the local plans idea that emerged will have more impact. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me and will elaborate on that. The clubs will have to meet with the police, the local authority and the local supporters clubs, and create a local plan which would assess the issues affecting games at the club.
The channels of communication that will be opened by this move are long overdue and will benefit football. Our football clubs have not been standing idly by in the past year waiting for Government measures. Closed circuit television cameras are now in place throughout the first and second divisions and they will be extended throughout the league. Family enclosures now exist in 67 clubs. Segregation of fans is better than it has ever been before, and attendances at matches this season are up on last season. These positive moves are often overlooked. Football is attacked far too often when it should be praised for meeting many of the challenges that are facing our national game.
The second way in which football can be improved is through better community use of our clubs. The community programme backed by the Football League and by the Professional Footballers Association is being expanded from the original six clubs in the north-west—

clubs as varied as Manchester United and Bury— to 10 more clubs ranging from Liverpool at the top of the league to Rochdale at the bottom of the fourth division, and I hope eventually to all 92 clubs.
These clubs are becoming focal points for the community, not just for football but for women's aerobics and pensioners' bowls as well. Surely that is the direction in which we must move, rather than building bigger and better fences around our grounds and banning supporters from matches. Coupled with the admirable Sports Council Action Sports initiative going nationwide, the community focus for sport is at last being taken seriously, even though these schemes are getting little support from a Government who are determined to tackle the problems in football through legislation rather than understanding.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly pointed out the part played by football clubs in the community and the encouragement that is being given to them. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that that role can be encouraged also by the use of synthetic pitches so that clubs are able to use their pitches 365 days in the year, for all the various activities described, without detriment to the club? Is he therefore somewhat worried by the attitude of the Football League and Football Association towards synthetic pitches, which may reduce the community use of those club grounds?

Mr. Pendry: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have wished to declare his interest when making that intervention, as he is the hon. Member whose constituency covers Luton Town. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and develop his point. I believe that plastic pitches cannot be ruled out at the lower end of the divisions. I believe that that should be the experimental ground for much of what may come later, but the plastic pitch has not been perfected—certainly not at Queens Park Rangers or at Luton Town. Eventually, with the advances of modern science and with many companies engaging in manufacture, we shall some day be able to play in the first and second divisions on plastic pitches.
I should like to move on, because I know that there are other speakers. We must remember that the Government cut the Sports Council grant this year, but we can see some hopeful signs. I have seen much development of women's participation in sports. Women are often left out of sporting debates, but what is happening in this area is very heartening. It is encouraging to see that at last we have on British television an expert in her field—Sally Jones—who has a couple of blues at Oxford and who can speak with great authority on the subject. That is a very good sign that we are moving in that direction.
The relationship between the Sports Council and other sporting structures needs further examination. [Interruption] My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has strong views on this subject. I have touched on the role of the Minister, a post which has not been adequately filled since my right hon. Friend was there. In my sporting travels to the Olympics in Munich and Moscow and to the Mexican world cup, his was the one name that rang out as the politician who had done most for sport, even though he is no longer a Minister. I know that he is not well today, but wild horses could not keep him away from a debate of this kind. I am sure every hon. Member is pleased to see him here.
The current situation with the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation working against each other rather than in tandem was highlighted by the second report of the Environment Committee— with many of whose conclusions I and others did not agree. Those problems continue to worry many of us. Admirable work has been done by both bodies. Especially, Peter Lawson of the CCPR and John Wheatley of the Sports Council are doing invaluable work for sport, but those two bodies must work more closely together and give a collective voice to sport. I do not believe that politicians receive adequate pressure from those bodies or the media generally to respond to the problems facing the league today. I do not think that pressure is adequately applied.
The sporting voice desperately needs to be heard. Sports pitches throughout the country are threatened by the Department of Education and Science's regulation 909. The commitment from the Labour party to repeal this ridiculous legislation has already been made clear by our Front Bench spokesman on education. With each week that passes, more and more pitches are lost for ever to the developer. We must preserve the spots of green land that dot our inner-city landscape and if they are no longer needed by schools because of falling rolls, they should be seized on by the community for the community. I know that my colleagues wish to develop this point, so I shall not go on about it for too long. It was nice to hear the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
Many small non-profit-making sports clubs face an unreasonable burden from the rates. The rating system must be reviewed and harmonised throughout Britain, not by increasing the rate charges to the higher levels experienced in Scotland but by looking at the system in Northern Ireland. When I was Minister in that Department—I am bragging here— I introduced an order which provided a statutory rate reduction of 65 per cent. for clubs that are recreational and non-profit-making. This followed wide consultation with many sporting bodies and it was welcomed across the whole of Northern Ireland. My office rang the Northern Ireland Sports Council this morning and heard that it is still extremely happy with it, so it could be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom. We should be helping sports clubs whose volunteers give us their precious time in the name of sport, not penalising them for doing so.
I hope that we will debate sport more regularly than once a decade. Earlier this month, a "Panorama" programme brought out the issues bandied about concerning school sport—participation versus excellence, team sports versus recreation for all, specialist helping versus health for life. As chairman of the parliamentary Labour sports committee, I make it clear—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath will do the same— that the health of sport in our schools will influence Britain's sporting future for years to come. The undermining of the value of school sports by the Government selling off playing fields, by cuts in school budgets and by the confrontational attitude to teachers is leaving sport in a sorry state. These attacks must be reversed and a clear philosophy spelt out to schools.
Excellence should be encouraged in those who can attain it, particularly through links between schools and local sports clubs. Those who find sport difficult should

be helped and encouraged so that they develop an interest in sport that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Competition in sport is enjoyable and exciting for some, but that is merely one approach. There should be a choice, with a real emphasis on participation so that everyone can play on his own terms in his own way at his own level. Competition and participation can and should work closely together in schools, particularly in areas where joint use of facilities between school and community is a reality. Only if they do that will sport stay healthy.
On the subject of joint use, I firmly believe that it is misguided Governments and local councils who threaten sport far more than head teachers, because they see sport as a peripheral rather than an integral part of life, and refuse to open facilities for maximum use to the community. I could go on, as I have barely scratched the surface of this subject. However, I know that many others wish to speak.
I end as I began, by calling for sport to be treated seriously in the House. The subject deserves regular debate rather than having to wait for a tragedy, a crisis or luck in the ballot for it to reach the Order Paper. Sport is of vital importance to so many people in Britain. Over 13 million people take part in sport at least once a month. The House must take the lead in sport not by making people fit Olympic training schedules into their lives but by promoting the joys, exhilarations and sheer diversities of sport. In a period of change, when leisure is of real importance, as the working week shortens and people retire earlier——

Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the expansion of sport and its importance in society. Will he lend his voice and that of his party to improving the chances of Sunday racing being introduced, as it is long overdue?

Mr. Pendry: I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this subject. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to develop this point further. I was coming to the end of my speech and the hon. Gentleman rather spoilt it. I shall try to pick it up. It is my fault for giving way, but I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on this subject.
As all these factors—the shorter working week, early retirement and unmployment—come together, we have to look to sport in a way that we have not looked to it before. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, I and my colleagues will make sure that the Labour party will strive to ensure that sport has a higher priority on the political agenda.

Mr. John Carlisle: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his good fortune in drawing this subject high in the ballot and for having a good three-hour debate. I hope that we shall have many contributions from both sides of the House. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's idea that the House should debate sport much more. The hon. Gentleman spoke sensibly. I did not agree with all that he said—he would not expect me to do so— but I pay tribute to him for the work that he has been doing, in his party and on the all-party football committee, in trying to promote our national game. As he rightly said, it is a pity


that it needs a crisis for us to discuss this important subject. That is why I hope that today we can discuss it in an atmosphere of calm and all-party understanding.
As chairman of the Conservative party Back-Bench committee on sport, I feel it incumbent on me to say that we are proud of the Government's record in sport, warts and all. The Government have faced some of the real problems presented to us for reasons in many cases far outside sport—such as the breakdown in law and order—which have nothing to do with football but which are attendant on the sport. The Government have tackled the problems with vigour and enthusiasm. In particular, I associate my remarks with the present Minister with responsibility for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey).
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) made some remarks about the Sports Council grant being cut next year. I remind him, although he needs no reminding, that the budget has not been cut. It has not been increased. Two years ago the increase was stated as being for two years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in this subject.
Our difficulties in the House and as a Government stem from the fact that we should not be seen to be interfering too much in sport and sport administration. We should be here to guide sport through the various labyrinths of legislation and to put in legislation where it is necessary. However, the Conservative party is most reluctant to dictate to sportsmen, sportswomen and administrators the path that they should follow. Ours should be no more than the guiding, and gentle, hand on the tiller, rather than the direct interference that I fear that some Labour Members may wish to have.
The Government have tackled the most recent problems in football. I know that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is well versed in football. The crisis that we had to face after the events of Birmingham, Luton and the Heysel stadium and the tragic events of the Bradford fire have resulted in legislation, and encouragement has been given to clubs, with a gentle hand from the Government, to put their house in order.
I endorse the recent agreement made by my hon. Friend the Minister with the Football League on membership and the various measures that he has taken. However, the Government could have done more about tobacco sponsorship. I was interested that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde avoided that subject. I remind him—and perhaps either he or the right hon. Member for Small Heath would like to confirm it—that it seems to be written into the Labour party manifesto for the next election that it sees an end to tobacco sponsorship for sport. That is the information that we have been given, and I notice that Labour Members are not denying it. That step would have a devastating effect on sport, and it is totally out of keeping with many sports lovers on the Opposition benches—and perhaps the many smokers as well.
Sport needs all the friends that it can get. If members of the tobacco industry are interested in pouring large sums of money into sport, to its direct benefit, not only at high national and international levels, but at lower levels through the clubs, we should accept that money, which is very welcome. I do not agree with the argument that other money is available. If it is, it can be used in addition to the tobacco sponsorship and not as a replacement.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the matter of tobacco sponsorship will he in the Labour party manifesto—I hope that it is—but does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the conflict whereby sport encourages people to be healthy and active and smoking does precisely the opposite?

Mr. Carlisle: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has said, the agreement is voluntary. Until smoking becomes illegal, it is perfectly moral for any sport to accept money from the tobacco industry. Indeed, the money that is given to sport encourages people to become and remain healthy—very much along the lines that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested.
It has already been mentioned that school sport is very much to the fore, particularly because of the industrial dispute in education. I found it distressing to learn from a recent "Panorama" programme on television that some schoolchildren are now considered to be less fit at the age of 15 than their parents are at the ages of 40 and 45.
We are all aware that, in many schools, not necessarily those in Labour-controlled authorities, competitiveness has been taken out of sport. That is to be regretted. I am very pleased to see that the Inner London education authority— I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has an interest in this—has reversed its policy on competitiveness in school sport.
One of the keynotes in the Duke of Edinburgh's speech at the annual general meeting of the Central Council for Physical Recreation was that we must encourage competition in our schools. Some independent schools are not averse to that type of criticism. It is to be regretted that, in many schools, competition has been reduced for all sorts of reasons—not only because of the teachers' unwillingness to teach sport, but the problems with caretakers, groundsmen and so on. Sport in schools must be competitive and be part of children's education.
As the Duke of Edinburgh said, when referring to the rising rate of juvenile crime, about which all hon. Members are concerned, the real alternative of sport and leisure, particularly in the inner-city areas, is now under threat because of the attitude of some schools. We should consider that more closely and try to encourage more competition within those areas.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about the selling of playing fields. He will recall that, about two years ago, I introduced a Bill that expressed regret that playing fields were being sold. I do not believe that we should follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that no school playing fields should ever be sold. That would be foolish. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to establish a register which shows the number of playing fields and how many are lost during the year.
While undertaking research for my intended Bill, I could not, regrettably, obtain information from either the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education and Science on how many fields were being lost. We need a national register of the number of playing fields that are available. That is rather different from a register of vacant and derelict land on which there are some playing fields.
Such a register will make us and the Secretary of State aware of the position, and that will force some local


authorities to change their minds about selling, playingfields. It is a sad fact that far too many pitches are being lost despite the admirable campaign of the CCPR and other bodies.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the community use of playing fields. I must take up the hon. Gentleman on that matter. I declare an interest as Luton Town football club is in my constituency. Its synthetic pitch is used by other clubs in and around Luton and the rest of the country throughout the year. About 18,000 people have played football on Luton Town football pitch this season. I believe that no other club in the country can boast that amount of use. We have used if for show jumping, motor shows, American football and concerts, and it was used for a recent meeting of teachers concerning their industrial action. They went to Kenilworth road and had their meeting on the pitch.
That type of community use is assisted by synthetic pitches. The Football League, the Football Association and some Opposition Members are burying their heads in the sand if they believe that that type of pitch is not to the good of the club and the community.
Hon. Members may say that such a pitch is fine at the lower levels of the sport where experiments can take place, but that is rather like having a horse and not knowing how it will run until it is put into a race. The moratorium of the Football League is wrong because its attitude will stifle the development that is needed to improve the standard and quality of pitches.
If grounds are to become truly community services, as they should, I suggest to hon. Members, who are unfortunate enough not to have clubs with synthetic pitches in their constituencies, that they should understand how such pitches could be used year in, year out, and day in, and day out whatever the weather, with no loss of facilities and without wear and tear on the pitch.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that artificial pitches would encourage community use of grounds, but does he accept that, unless all the league clubs switch over to plastic pitches, clubs with artificial pitches will have an unfair advantage in knockout competitions such as the FA cup?

Mr. Carlisle: The figures relating to Luton Town before this season do not bear out that assertion. Luton Town gained more points away from home than at home. That was extraordinary. This season, Luton is riding high in the first division and it is likely to take the championship. If synthetic pitches are to be a part of our future, as many people believe, clubs should be encouraged to make use of them.
One of the reasons why life is so happy in Luton at present is that people are looking forward to returning their Member of Parliament for Luton, North at the next general election.
As Luton Town football club has banned away supporters, Luton has become a safe place not just for people to come and watch our football team, but to come and enjoy facilities that the town offers on a Saturday afternoon. I am aware that one or two Opposition Members have come to Luton and there is an open invitation for them to come whenever they like to watch a game. There has been not one arrest at the ground all season. Policemen go home before the match begins and

children go to matches on their own. There is a marvellous atmosphere at the ground. Our membership scheme and the fact that we have got rid of the element in football that nobody wants has benefited not only the club, but football in general.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the rate relief for non-profit-making sports clubs. A week ago, four or five heads of major sports, from rugby, cricket, tennis and soccer, went before the Conservative Back-Bench committee to plead their case on the basis of rating relief, particularly for the smaller clubs. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the matter. I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to consider carefully the basis on which discretionary relief is given or refused. Some clubs, although small in number, do not receive any rate relief from their local authorities, although by statute the local authority is able to give discretionary relief.
I believe that in the forthcoming reform of the rating system, which I welcome as do most of my hon. Friends, it should be written into the legislation that the discretionary relief should be put at a minimum level, very much on the lines of what is happening now in Northern Ireland. There, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, a former Minister, will know, some 65 per cent. is guaranteed. We are looking forward to the Scottish system and we are encouraged by the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland when, in a recent speech, he gave some indication that perhaps that type of system may come about and, perhaps more importantly to hard-pressed local finances, that some subsidy will be given in rate support grant.
Some clubs, especially smaller clubs, are suffering from enormous rates burdens which may well put their future in jeopardy. One has only to quote one or two clubs. For example, the rates of the Havant rugby club in Hampshire have gone up from £50 to £2,600, the rates for Eastleigh rugby club, in the same county, have gone from nothing to £1,500 and, without embarrassing my hon. Friend the Minister, he will know that the hockey club in Surbiton is now liable for a £1,645 rate levy and that it is charged £120 for refuse collection. I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of those figures and that they have been put to him, but I hope that he will note the plea, which is genuine. Those clubs are providing for our youngsters and others, in terms of increased leisure, a facility which in some cases is second to none.
Some of the reasons that have been given by local authorities for not giving them rate relief are totally spurious. It is nonsense to suggest that the fact that some of them have bars—in fact, many of them have bars—would upset the local licensees. It is nonsense not to get them rate relief on the basis that some of them have had some connection with South Africa. I assure the House that that is the only time I shall mention it. It is also nonsense to say that sport is only for the rich. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if he has any hand in forming legislation or rating reform in the next Parliament, it must be written in to legislation that the clubs must have the minimum discretionary relief and, if need be, that it may have to be credited from the Government.
This is a subject that is not talked about enough. Politicians are not perhaps as conversant as they should be with it. They are not aware of the importance of sport in people's lives, the fact that leisure time will be increasing and that there are many people giving up a lot of time,


most of it voluntarily and unpaid, to try to help our youngsters along the road to fitness and good health. We need to talk more about sport. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on initiating the debate. I hope that some positive measures will be taken and that we shall hear a positive message from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I add my tribute to my hon. Friend and colleague the member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for introducing the debate. We were both elected to the House for the first time in 1970 and he has maintained a keen interest in sport throughout that time. Indeed, in his maiden speech on 26 November 1970 he revealed to the House that he was an ex-ABA boxing champion. Perhaps I should state one or two of my own credentials in this matter.
The first occasion on which I played for the Lords and Commons cricket XI, I was assured by the late Sir Eric Bullus that I had established a club record because I was hit for 26 off one over. In the nature of an arithmetic progression, it was four, two, four, six, four, six. In my own defence I should say that the fifth ball was skied to fine leg and was dropped and went for four. Out of deference, I shall not reveal the indentity or the party of the hon. Member who dropped it.
Should anybody be wondering about my future place in the Wisden hierarchy, I should say that when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury I could play only in matches that were near the House, so that I could be available in an emergency. I used to give my private secretary the telephone number of the pavilion where the team was playing. On one occasion when I was playing at Vincent square, he rang the pavilion and asked whether it was possible to speak to the Chief Whip. He was told that the Chief Whip was just walking out to bat. Showing the customary loyalty, he said, "In that case, I will hang on."
In the Bristol area we have, through the foresight of the late Alderman St. John Reade, some magnificent school sites in a ring around the edge of the city. He had the foresight to plan the great school sites where the Bristol comprehensive system developed very early on, and they are, by and large, in the centres of large housing estates.
Falling school numbers at secondary level create surplus capacity in land and buildings. My plea is that over-zealous disposal of those assets at this stage is incredibly short-sighted, because once those great sites are redeveloped they are irretrievably lost to future education and community purposes.
To date, the CCPR has been notified of about 577 sports fields and recreational facilities in England and Wales that are disposable. I am not at all happy about the guidance given in 1982 in the Department of Education and Science building bulletin No. 28, "Playing Fields and Hard Surface Areas", which says that if the local education authority decides to sell the land to release assets for other purposes, some of it may be used for the improvement of other playing fields. That seems to be a fairly wishy-washy sort of instruction, because the assets locked up could never be reproduced, except at the most enormous cost, if they were wanted again.
I join the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in asking for more information from the Government about what assets are available. The 1986 annual report of the south western council for sport and recreation

expressed its concern over sports fields being taken over for development. At present in the Avon county area—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) will understand my reluctance to pronounce the word "Avon" in those circumstances, but I have to face the present reality—there are seven sports fields listed by the CCPR and they are threatened with disposal.
The council also expressed its concern at the loss of recreational land that could be used to provide pitches for local football teams. I should mention here the Bristol. South Labour club. I must declare my interest, because I am not only a director but the chairman. I regret to say that no dividend has been paid or is likely to be paid on any occasion in the future. The club has a football team of keen young men and it is difficult to find a pitch for them. Yet, in the area there are secondary schools with large playing fields which, for a large part of the time, are standing idle.
To show the catholic nature of the club, we also have two men's darts teams, ladies' darts team, five skittle teams using the alley during the week, and a crib team. When I was a small boy I could never understand the great interest in the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. I thought it was a national event that everybody hung on. However, now that I am a little older I realise that a small coterie follow that occasion, and that activities such as those at our club are the activities of the ordinary people of this country. Some senior wranglers would be astonished at the mental arithmetic of people who do the chalking up at darts matches. Those things should not be overlooked, but should be encouraged.
Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 local authorities must register land that is derelict. The CCPR is concerned about that requirement and about school fields that are surplus to requirements. There seems to be a lack of information about what is involved and it is not possible to monitor the exact acreage that is under threat. I hope that the Minister will consider collating or compiling figures so that a more national view can be taken.
Two of the grounds that are threatened in the Bristol area are private or industrial sports grounds. Despite the fact that in 1983 the Minister with responsibility for sport asked the top 100 companies to see whether their facilities could be used for the benefit of the community, if a firm has cash flow difficulties, or wants to raise enough money for expansion, there is a great temptation to sell the land for development instead of giving a higher priority to the community's interests. I hope that this issue will be looked at much more seriously.
In my experience in government, I found that the problem of hypothecation was ever present. As that is a long word to master I shall dwell on it for a moment. It is epitomised by the lack of any cross-departmental thinking. If I may use a local authority example, I am sure that all hon. Members will many times have had the experience of trying to get a young couple rehoused near their elderly parents who need care and attention. They will have pointed out to the local authority that if that change could be made and the young people were near their parents, much of the burden could be lifted from the social and caring services. Even in an individual case, the net saving in money would be substantial. However, the system is so rigid that it is difficult to get those factors taken into account.
When the Labour party was in government, the only Minister who managed to break through that barrier was our dear colleague the late Frank McElhone, who represented the Gorbals. He did some absolutely pioneering work for Scotland and was beginning to develop that idea. The House and the nation suffered a great loss by his tragic and premature death, because he was beginning to break down the terrible compartmentalisation that bedevils these problems.
There are problems if the community and the education authorities are using the same premises. However, it is not simply that the playing fields are over-used. There is also the question of the change of accommodation, and who will supervise and care for it and deal with the administration and the lettings. Headmasters are under pressure in many different ways these days and are reluctant to tread in that area and face the problems of dual control, insurance and so on. This is important, and the Minister should consider encouraging his right hon. and hon. Friends to develop the idea that there should be some outside input into and control over premises, because it is not fair to try to foist it all on to the teaching profession. However, if it is done, I am sure that there will be the utmost co-operation and that, where such facilities exist, the communities will benefit enormously.
At the end of the war there was widespread damage and we needed to replace what are sometimes called the "Coronation Street" areas of our cities, where the old Victorian back-to-back houses were no longer adequate. However, when people were moved out to the great housing estates, the sense of community did not travel with them. As Whips are not noted for their culture, perhaps I may be forgiven for quoting two words which I have managed to master and which are used by German sociologists. They are "gemeinschaft" which is the feeling of community and togetherness that one feels in a village and "gesellschaft", which is the loneliness of being in a big town and not knowing anybody. We have the strange anomaly that the loneliest people in the country live in the biggest conglomerations of population.
I am sure that on some of the large estates that were laid out primarily to rehouse people, but which were not provided with the proper facilities, an interdepartmental study of the way in which the work of one Department could help another would make an enormous contribution to bringing a sense of community and togetherness into those areas. That would be an antidote to the problems of rising crime and the violence of which we are all aware.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the migration of people from traditional centres. Does he agree that that is one of the reasons for the sadly declining attendances at professional football matches? The grounds are still where the people used to be, but the people are no longer there.

Mr. Cocks: Yes, that is an important point.
I have not mentioned the team in my own area, which is Bristol City, for fairly obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I have been a loyal supporter of that team since 1946.
I finish with a plea to the Minister. He has the opportunity to make his mark, not only in relation to sport, but on the whole issue of community caring and in building up the spirit that is the real answer to the problems of divisiveness and destruction in many parts of

society today. Will he please do what he can to encourage all those who have these sites within their purview to resist the temptation to go for a quick cash return and to concentrate instead on how the grounds, which provide one-off opportunities, could be used for the benefit of everybody within the area?

Sir Edward du Cann: The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) has just made an important and thoughtful speech. I hope that his points will command the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Environment. I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was a cricketer of such style and prowess, as we learned at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman is modest.

Sir Edward du Cann: As my hon. Friend points out, the right hon. Gentleman is also modest. Of course, not every member of the Lords and Commons cricket club is as agile or, I suspect, as wily as the right hon. Gentleman. I am told that on one occasion the Lords and the Commons cricket team arrived to play at their opponents' ground, one man short. Therefore, they recruited a young man who was a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club's ground staff, arguing, with impeccable logic, that as he was employed at Lords it was only reasonable that he should play for the Lords and Commons cricket team. So far, so good. He was instructed to field on the boundary. He asked, "Which part?" "All of it," came the reply.
I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South—not least with his sensible plea for the abolition of the country of Avon, in the interests of the counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset and of the great west country city of Bristol.
I wish to speak about the single matter of Sunday racing. I declare an interest as a shareholder in and a director of the Taunton race course, which is one of the smallest courses in the United Kingdom. It is also one of the most attractive and is one of only three National Hunt courses in the west of England. That course is typical of the many throughout the United Kingdom which provide great encouragement to all those who love the sport of kings, who love horses, who want to race horses, who enjoy watching horses race and who derive some simple amusement by betting on the results. It is not only one of the smallest courses in England, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out in his admirable speech, in which he made some important points, it has great difficulty, as do many other small enterprises——

Mr. Rathbone: Such as Plumpton.

Sir Edward du Cann: Yes like Plumpton, it finds the greatest difficulty in remaining viable.
We have only 11 race meetings a year and it is inevitable that more than one is interrupted, if not completely spoilt, by weather conditions during the winter and early spring. It is a hard job to ensure modest profitability.
I should like to pay tribute to all those who work so hard without thought of personal reward to keep those smaller sporting enterprises going. Certainly in Taunton we have hard marvellous leadership — from my late friend, the former chairman of the company, Colonel Mitford-Slade, from the present chairman, Mr. Reading,


from Mr. Dunn, who have been associated with the course for a long time, and from others. I am glad to mention those names because throughout the United Kingdom a multitude of people have not so much a financial interest in these smaller enterprises, as an emotional commitment to their communities and a practical interest in those enterprises.
I agree that we all owe the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde a debt of gratitude for his initiative in securing the debate. He is one of the best liked and most respected hon. Members. Perhaps it is easier to say that when he is not present than to his face, and I hope that paying him a compliment will not do him harm. I hope that his early-day motion 732 will command the support of an increasing number of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says we talk too little about sporting matters.
The horse-racing industry is a great national asset, employing 100,000 people. So expert are our breeders, trainers, and jockeys and so wise our owners that it brings in to the balance of payments no less than £3 million each year net in prize money. Nearly 4 million people attend the race tracks every year and as we have just finished our debate on the Budget, the House will be familiar with the huge sums which are raised in betting duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was most wise to abolish on-course betting duty, for which several of us have argued for many years. This will give a much-needed boost to the spectator sport of racing and will undoubtedly be instrumental in making certain that the number of people visiting race tracks to watch will, at least, not decline and may continue marginally to rise. That practical encouragement for the racing industry and the sport is appreciated.
Another problem facing the racing industry is that the United Kingdom is the only major racing country unable to stage meetings on a Sunday because of the present betting restrictions. They are to be found in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and to a lesser extent in the Sunday Observance Act 1780. But conditions and attitudes have changed considerably since we passed the legislation of 24 years ago and certainly since the climate of opinion in which the 1780 Act was passed.
Racing is the only major sport in the United Kingdom unable to provide entertainment for the public on a Sunday. It is remarkable to reflect that other events held on Sundays include Wimbledon tennis finals, the final round of the British Open golf championship and of the Ryder Cup, the Littlewoods Cup final, the one-day Sunday cricket league matches—which have given such pleasure to many people and perhaps have saved cricket as a professional sport from extinction—Rugby League matches, snooker championships and the British Grand Prix. It is absurd that in an increasingly competitive environment racing should continue to be deprived of the opportunity to hold meetings on a day of prime leisure time.
I commend to the attention of the House, not least my hon. Friend the able young Minister responsible for sporting events, the report of the working party of the Jockey Club published in January this year. It follows two years study and recommends that there should be a change in the legislation affecting Sunday racing. There is undoubtedly a majority in favour of that and it would be both logical and fair to change the rules. While I appreciate that the prime responsibility for doing that may rest with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I hope

that my hon. Friend the Minister can say that that matter will undoubtedly engage the Government's attention and that he will be good enough to report to the Home Secretary the probably unanimous and certainly majority view of the House that that would be sensible.
If the law is changed, not only will a demand be satisfied, but the Government will gain substantially. If the Irish experiment sets a sensible precedent, as I believe it does, the Government would undoubtedly gain considerably more in revenue duties. Moreover, there would he the prospect of additional employment; which is warmly to be welcomed at this time.
The Jockey Club is properly consulting interested parties about this matter. If any one has anxieties about the effect of the proposal, I believe that it should be relatively easy to agree reasonable working conditions for those involved. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), were encouraged by a public statement made by the chairman of William Hill on this subject only yesterday.
I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North commented wisely on tobacco sponsorship. Much as I should like to comment on their speeches, my single point is that this anomaly affecting racing should be removed promptly. If it is, everybody will gain. It is reasonable that the House should unite in saying that in future it will provide conditions for racing which are as fair as those for other spectator sports. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in whose judgment I have such faith, will be good enough to say that the Government will certainly study this matter in future and come forward with specific proposals.

Mr. David Alton: The House may understand that as a Liverpool Member I have listened with particular interest to the three preceding speeches, especially that of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). Each year the city hosts the Grand National, so racing is of enormous interest to the people of Liverpool. However, I do not entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the betting associated with horse racing. 'The misery associated with betting shops in inner-city areas where people waste their savings, earnings and benefits represents the other side of this argument.
I agree with right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) about the need for facilities and for the Departments that administer those facilities to be better integrated. He touched on a matter dear to my heart when he said that some playing fields which ring the city of Bristol have been disappearing—we have similar fields round Liverpool— and how important it is that they should be safeguarded. That is also true of the beautiful Victorian parks in the city of Liverpool which provide a marvellous open space for recreation and are a great legacy from our Victorian forefathers. We must do more to safeguard them too.
Before that we heard from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) who told us about synthetic football pitches. In Liverpool, I like to think that we know a little about authentic football although I would not like to say which of the two football teams in Liverpool is the best.
Before any of my political opponents accuse me of sitting on the fence, I had better say that this is a good occasion for doing just that.
Like other hon. Members, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on choosing this very important subject and on giving us the chance to discuss sporting issues. There is a great deal of cross-party support for a number of the points that he made in his cogent and compelling speech. I want to refer to some of the issues that have already been raised and to issues that I have raised on previous occasions with the Minister who is to reply.
There is a desperate need for an integrated and coordinated sports policy. I agreed with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that it is a tragedy that the "Sports Department"—if I may call it that—was hidden away inside the Department of the Environment. I want to see a much higher profile given by the Government to that important function. That in no way underestimates the Minister's own personal contribution.
There should also be a greater role and more support given to the sports councils. When I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, it carried out an investigation into the work of the sports councils and we concluded that they were doing an admirable job. However, we recognised the need for those councils to be given greater support. I met members of the north-west sports council a few months ago when they came to meet representatives from each of the parties. They were led by the secretary, Mr. Roger Pontefract, and they underlined the need for more resources. They said that in the northwest this year the budget of £1·5 million is the same as last year and is, in effect, a cut. Nationally, a request was made for an additional £4 million for inner city areas and that was turned down. The north-west sports council is also concerned about the possibility of water privatisation measures being re-introduced and the disastrous effects that that would have on the north-west.
A colleague of mine, Mr. Chris Davies, from Saddleworth, has been leading a campaign to safeguard Saddleworth Moors for recreation, open space, walking, running and many other leisure activities. As he has said, it would be a great tragedy if those facilities were lost to the nation if they were sold off for other purposes as a result of water privatisation.
The north-west sports council also expressed concern for schemes which will collapse later this year when money will finally run out in the aftermath of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. The sports council said that this under-provision of funds will come back to haunt us later in the year. I would welcome the Minister's reactions to those worries expressed by the north-west sports council when he replies.
A national strategy and a more dynamic role for the sports councils is needed. However, quite properly, mention has been made throughout the debate to the country's No. 1 spectator sport. On 2 March the Minister will recall that, along with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I visited him with a delegation from the Football Supporters Association, a Liverpool-based initiative. During the course of our discussions we raised a number of issues. I want to ask the Minister what progress has been made on some of those matters.
We raised the question of mergers and asset-stripping. Has the Minister been able to make any progress on drawing up new guidelines? With regard to the Heysel stadium disaster, he will recall that the hon. Member for Walton and I asked whether he would pursue with UEFA the question of its responsibilities during the course of the disaster. Has he been able to make any progress in that respect? We also raised the question of the need for a new national football stadium. Everyone recognises— the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has regularly raised the issue—the need for a national sports stadium outside London. Has the Minister given that any further thought?
We raised points about membership schemes, ticket allocation and the need for more facilities for handicapped people, especially at Wembley. We also raised the continuing ban of English participation in European cup competitions. The Minister will recall that we met him before the UEFA meeting in Berne that took place on 10 March. Given the UEFA criticism at that meeting, when it gave as one of the reasons for non-readmission the proposition that the British Government had not taken sufficient or imaginative measures to reassure UEFA about the future conduct of British fans, what is the Minister's response to that fairly serious claim?
The Minister will recall that members of the Football Supporters Association set out a number of other points during the course of the discussions. In its charter, the FSA includes a number of points which should commend themselves to the House. The FSA claims that its aim
is to achieve representation for its members in all areas of the game where currently their interests are completely ignored. This includes such basic matters as ground safety and comfort. It includes involvement in decisions about where 'prestige' and international games are played. It includes involvement in decisions about ticket allocations for these games. In pursuing these aims, the FSA will act on behalf of its members irrespective of which club, league, national or international association may be involved. The FSA will reclaim the game for its members by using its strength—the membership itself.
In its charter the FSA also state that:
We will not allow any further alienation of the game's traditional followers—ordinary people who use football at all levels as a recreational pursuit—by fanatics who see it as a duty to resort to violence to uphold allegiance to a particular club or team, or those who see football as a platform to reflect their own individual power or wealth. The FSA will take on the task of restoring football to its rightful owners—the supporters.
In effect, the FSA is claiming that the game belongs to the supporters and not to boards of directors. Many hon. Members would recognise the need to ensure that responsible fans are themselves more fully involved in the policing of the game and in ensuring that discipline is maintained in the grounds. This is a better way of going about things than simply passing more legislation.
I hope that the FSA will continue to be supported and that it will be recognised as a genuine voice for genuine fans and that the Government will ensure that it is not frozen out. Clubs should positively encourage its development. The FSA also raised with the Minister the suggestion that an "ombudsfan" should be appointed with the same role as the local government ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. He would be able to take up complaints and grievances. I think that that idea has something to commend it and I wonder whether the Minister has been able to give it any further consideration.
Having spent so much time on a spectator sport, I want to consider participation sports. As I represent a constituency that is half in the inner city and half in the suburbs, I am especially worried about the lack of proper changing facilities, pitches and places. Young people should be encouraged to participate in sport especially at a time when they have so much enforced leisure time on their hands with so much youth unemployment. However, in a city such as Liverpool where the fastest-growing group is the over-80s and where one in four people are over retirement age, there is also a desperate need to provide facilities such as bowling-greens for the elderly. More special initiatives should be taken in that respect.
There are very few swimming pools in Liverpool for young people. Perhaps we could use unemployed people in the construction industry to provide these sort of facilities. People who have time on their hands, nothing to do and nowhere to go, almost invariably and inevitably fall into the hands of common criminals, into vice rings or the abuse of drugs. It is important to recognise the links between crime and the failure to harness the energies of young people. Great frustration is born out of enforced time on the dole or through living in miserable ugly surroundings such as those described by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) in the ghastly overspill estates. It is important that we recognise the consequences of there not being places for people to go to and the conditions in which they live.

Mr. John Carlisle: Many hon. Members will have listened to the hon. Gentleman with interest and sympathy on the problems affecting the young unemployed. He will know of the various schemes whereby, for example, reduced entry to swimming pools is allowed to the youth unemployed. The problem in many cases— I am sure that this is so in Liverpool—is educating the youth to use those facilities. Does he agree that many local authorities should take more of a role to provide trained officers through the Sports Council to go to young people and educate them in the use of facilities that already exist, let alone those that might exist in future?

Mr. Alton: I entirely agree. The Sports Council's role as a catalyst—its dynamic role, which I described—is important in providing that type of training. The know-how does not exist in many local authorities, so there is a positive role for the sports council to play. Buildings could be liberated and used for dual purposes. I agree with those hon. Members who have touched on this matter that, far too often, facilities built for health, education or social service purposes are not always released to the local communities for other purposes. There should be much more dual use of buildings.
Last year, I saw the Minister about ice rink facilities in my city. He will be sad to know that the facility about which we talked closed because the resources to maintain it were not available. This means that a city of 500,000 people has no ice rink facility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the north-west sports council will ascertain whether there is any way to enable that facility to be re-opened.
There should not be a piecemeal approach to these problems. There is a need for a national strategy and for a lead role for the Sports Council. There is a great challenge, especially in inner-city areas where there are so many young people. Half the 3 million unemployed are

under 25, many of them desolate and with pent-up emotions. Sport can provide them with a positive and powerful outlet. It can lead to them remaining healthy individuals and being vibrant people who feel that there: is something in life for them. Sport trains them in the idea of teamwork, so preventing them from becoming isolated and embittered. For all those reasons, I am pleased that we have had the chance to debate this important issue.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I am pleased to participate in this debate about sport, which has already been so well contributed to. Sport plays an important part in our national life, as I think every hon. Member who has spoken has said. There is only a limited, although a proper, role for the Government in sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) put it so well, guidance is one thing; dirigiste intervention is another. I believe that the Government have it about right, and that goes for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)—as well.
Some would make a contrast and say that eastern European regimes have far more success on the games field and athletic tracks because they intervene much more than we do and provide many more resources than we do for sport. So they do, but this is not eastern Europe. I do not want to live in eastern Europe, and I do not want to live under that sort of regime either, so I think that we shall do our sport our way, even if perhaps we do not always collect quite as many medals as they do.
Government funding of sport is of about the right order. I should not be surprised if some Opposition Members argued about that, but that is certainly my view. After all, in a healthy state of affairs, amateur sport is sustained by enthusiasm and professional sport by the market, including sponsorship. I am prepared to concede, having said that, that there is an important role for grant-aiding facilities and coaching, especially youngsters, but I am bound to say, even when making that concession, that the history of most of the sports that one follows clearly shows that real talent breaks through anyway. I do not know whether Mr. Ian Botham or Mr. Sevvie Ballesteros ever had a Government grant, but I suspect that they did not.
The crisis in sport today is riot a crisis of resources. A greater crisis exists in standards of behaviour. I refer to the behaviour of both participants and spectators. The last time that I went to see one of our great, proud Birmingham football teams, the pitch was invaded three times. I was in a fairly safe position but I considered that a very frightening experience, and I would be reluctant to invite anyone to accompany me for an afternoon watching a match if that was likely to happen. Luton football club is to be congratulated. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North has spoken eloquently for the club. Its initiative in issuing identity cards is a proven success and, with the benefit of hindsight, is the obvious solution.
I have been on cricket grounds when that loveliest of games has been played to the accompaniment of banal chanting and waving. I have watched international rugby on television when the crowd has bayed at the place kicker in an effort to put him off. I have watched darts matches when the partisanship of the crowd has gone quite beyond any sense of fair play. Yet, on the other hand—there are always redeeming features in the contradictory pattern


that is our lives— I have seen snooker, that working man's game that has risen to the stars, produce sportsmanship and good humour, losing with good grace and generous winners paying tribute to the losers, which are examples to anyone, especially young spectators. Outstanding, too, have been the professional golfers, who, despite the chill solitude of their sport, have tended, almost without exception, to behave like ambassadors of their game and of good sportsmanship.
Priorities and encouragements are very much part of the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will do what he can to let it be known that there is a priority for sportsmanship and an encouragement for fair play.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: Although I share a common interest with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in as much as we both love the game of football, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal in any way with that because, like the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), I want to devote the few minutes that I have to a specific subject about which I am very worried—greyhound racing.
Greyhound racing is the No. 2 spectator sport in the country, but it is in decline and great difficulty. In 1960 about 15 million people visited greyhound tracks, but by last year attendance figures had dropped to 3·8 million. I want to say for the benefit of those who have not had the pleasure of visiting greyhound tracks that they are much more than places where people go just to place bets. Most have high-class restaurants, with first-class service. In many there are play areas for youngsters and first-class facilities for social pursuits when the racing is over. In other words, the modern greyhound track is an ideal centre for social enjoyment for people of all ages. These centres must be preserved.
The House is aware that the Horserace Betting Levy Board has been a boon to horse racing. In fact, horse racing has probably been saved from extinction by the horserace betting levy, which was introduced in 1961 when betting shops were legalised. Last year, the amount of money raised by the Horserace Betting Levy Board amounted to more than £20 million. I believe that a similar levy is essential for greyhound racing. Of course, the bookmakers will cry out in great anguish at such a suggestion, but I wonder why? In the end, it is just the good old punter who pays the bill. I must explain to the House that I have no pecuniary interest in greyhounds or horse racing; I am merely a punter who occasionally goes with his family to the greyhound track. I sometimes win a few bob, but more often I lose. Therefore, I speak as just a punter.
Greyhound racing provides between 20 and 25 per cent. of the off-course bookmakers' turnover, and that amply justifies the establishment of a levy. Last year the turnover from off-course betting shops from greyhound racing amounted to £760 million. Of that amount, the sport benefited by a measly £1·75 million. The levy on horse racing amounts to 1·5 per cent. of the turnover, and if that principle were to be applied to greyhound racing, the amount brought in would be a massive £114 million. As a result of such a levy prize money could be increased and that would encourage more people to purchase

greyhounds and to become involved in the expense of training and running the animals. Stadiums could be modernised and people would enjoy even greater comforts.
I wish to say a few words about what are known in the racing world as the "Big Four"—Coral, William Hill, Mecca and Ladbroke. Between them those four firms own 4,000 betting shops out of a total of 10,200 shops. Therefore, they own less than half the total number of shops, but the turnover from their shops represents more than 50 per cent. of the total wagered because, in the main, those four firms occupy prime high street sites up and down the country.
The Betting and Lotteries Act 1934 laid down that the owner or occupier of a track could not engage in betting of any kind. Of course, in those days, there was no legal off-course betting. There must have been good sound reasons for the provision in the 1934 Act. However, the Betting Levy Act 1961 legalised betting shops and did not have a similar provision. Consequently, there is a massive loophole in the 1961 Act, because the people who run betting shops can be involved in the ownership and management of greyhound tracks. Therefore, there are bookmakers who own and operate dog tracks. I believe that this is a serious mistake and that the loophole in the 1961 Act should be rectified.
Unlike some people, I do not go so far as to suggest that the dual responsibility of owning and running a track, and at the same time being involved in betting, will inevitably lead to the rigging of odds. I firmly believe that the administration of racing should be wholly separate from bookmaking. It is not the reality that matters; what is important is the public perception of that reality. The administration and organisation of racing must be seen to be wholly independent of the placing of bets and the fixing of odds.
I wish to say a few words about the Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services, commonly known as BAGS. This body was established in 1967 to provide betting information from the greyhound tracks to the betting shops when there was no horse racing because of bad weather. The House will readily recognise that there are many days in winter when there is no horse racing. The betting shops need to meet staff wages, lighting, heating and other overheads, so it is necessary for them to have a substitute for horse racing, and this substitute has been greyhound racing. Although this service was intended to be temporary to meet exceptional circumstances, I am afraid that it has become permanent and BAGS is now operating on most days.
Of the seven tracks that are currently used for afternoon racing, four are owned by bookmakers. Two are owned by Coral and two are owned by Ladbroke. Therefore, more than 50 per cent. of afternoon greyhound racing is owned and controlled by those two bookmakers. I believe that that is extremely unhealthy. The potential conflict of interest has been recognised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I am delighted that he has decided to refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading. We will await the outcome of its deliberations with a great deal of interest.
Finally, I wish to refer to Satellite Information Services. I believe that this represents the most serious threat to greyhound racing and, indeed, to horse racing. This service is due to become operative on 1 May this year. The principle is that betting information and pictures will be


beamed directly from the greyhound tracks and horse racing tracks, by means of television and satellite, into the 10,200 betting shops throughout the country. Satellite Information Services is the company that will operate this facility.
I understand that 45 per cent. of the shares of the company are owned by the big four bookmakers, 10 per cent. are owned by the Racecourse Association Ltd. which is restricted to horse racing, and the tote owns 5 per cent. The rest of the shares have not been allocated, but I believe that that allocation will be extremely important. For instance, will the National Bookmakers Association be allocated any shares? About 4,000 of its members have betting shops. They will be dependent upon the service. Will the National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd. be allocated any shares? It certainly should be, because much of the turnover of betting shops will come from greyhound racing.
Those are the weaknesses in the structure of Satellite Information Services, and I believe that the big four have too large an influence in the company. As I have said, it will be obliged to provide a service at a price to all the betting shops. The 10 per cent. share that is owned by the Racecourse Association Ltd. provides a virtual veto on decisions that the association does not like, but no such safeguard is presently provided for greyhound race courses. This a fundamental weakness and I think that the problem should be addressed.
Both greyhound racing and horse racing have a bright and glittering future, provided that the sports are properly organised and that high standards of integrity are maintained. This must surely entail the organisational side and the betting side being kept completely and entirely apart.
It might be alleged that what I have said is an attack upon the bookmakers, but it is nothing of the sort. As a punter—and there are millions of punters throughout the land—I am concerned about the continuing integrity of the sports. Therefore, I am launching no attack on bookmakers. I am merely asserting that the sports will best be served by keeping the organisational side and the betting side completely apart.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: If the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is the Frank Bruno of the Labour Benches, I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have had the wisdom to call the Tyson of the Tory Benches. I wish only that I had an interest to declare in the match. Regrettably, that is not the position.
I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for providing the House with the opportunity to discuss sport and recreation, and it is especially apposite that the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the problems affecting sport. They are numerous and they spread across the spectrum of sport and recreation. We face problem after problem. There is tremendous potential among our young sportsmen and women and great enthusiasm among the governors of the various sporting bodies and those who work in the world of sport and recreation, but we are not taking up positively the challenge that confronts us on both sides of the House. We must face the challenges and recognise that the time is right for a fresh look at a sport and recreation policy that is appropriate to our time.
There are challenges in three specific areas. First, we need a clearly defined policy for the promotion of excellence in sport. The British Olympic Association is especially well placed to take on more responsibility than at present. Secondly, we must recognise that people have more leisure time and that recreation should be part of a social policy. That means that the Sports Council will have an increased role in working with local borough councils, sports clubs and schools to initiate mass participation. I know that it has already started to follow that road, and admirably so, but we could construct a framework that would give it more assistance in taking that route. Thirdly, professional sport requires our attention and the greater attention of governing bodies that are involved in it.
Professional sport is becoming constrained more than ever by commercial criteria. Restraint of trade considerations are hindering or preventing many governing bodies from controlling their sports properly. Many such bodies are fast becoming bodies of no control. It is extremely difficult for a governing body. acting in the interests of sportsmen and women or the sport itself, to try to stop a sporting event taking place—it may feel strongly that it is not in the sport's interests—if a writ is about to he slapped on it for restraint of trade. The various governing bodies could work together to consider the problem and to assess it in depth.
Boxing, a sport that I know particularly well, could benefit from thrashing out a policy with the cricketers and some of the professionals who are involved in athletics that is in the interests of the sports that they seek to represent.
We should pay tribute to those who have worked for the Sports Aid Foundation and the Sports Aid Trust, which have done so much good work in bringing on youngsters in our society who are in need of financial help with their training and preparation for tournaments. Many of our top stars could never have reached the level that they have attained without the assistance that they have received from the Sports Aid Foundation.
Under the trust deeds, the objectives of the Sports Aid Trust are different from those of the foundation, being concentrated on education and social needs. I should like to see the foundation and the trust concentrating in different areas but working towards the same goal of assisting youngsters. I should like the trust to recognise the importance of getting youngsters to participate in sport, possibly even by financing a coach on a Saturday morning so that people who would not otherwise participate can engage in sport and develop the excellence for which the foundation has always stood. The trust can help youngsters through its charitable status by concentrating on education and social needs. I hope that imagination will now be applied to that sort of initiative to develop participation. As I have suggested, participation should he linked directly to the identification and development of excellence, which is the objective of the foundation and the trust.
The implications for sport and recreation in terms of leisure are far-reaching. I do not believe that sport can he considered only in the context of good health or after-work recreation. We need to distinguish much more clearly between assistance to our international athletes and the promotion of and participation in sport of those of all ages and both sexes within the population.
The Sports Council, operating under a royal charter in 1972, admirably and rightly had an all-embracing role in sports and recreation which was right for the time. I was


rather surprised by the comments by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossly Hill (Mr. Alton), who argued that a more dynamic role was required of the council. The fact is that the council concentrates its energies in every sphere of sport and recreation. If by a more dynamic role the hon. Gentleman means a concentration on excellence as well as participation, I disagree with him. I should like to see the concentration on excellence directed far more towards the British Olympic Association, with appropriate financial support. The association could direct itself to national centres of excellence and the Sports Council could concentrate on mass participation. This would lead to the development of a triangle, which would work downwards through the regional councils of sport and recreation to the local boroughs and schools.
Last year, the London boroughs spent £182 million on sport and recreation, which was about 600 per cent. more than the Sports Council's budget. Given the magnitude of spending at local borough level, we should recognise that it is at that level that we should be developing participation in sport and recreation. Many of our school facilities are lying idle. Many school playing fields are under threat of development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out. I strongly support the views that he put forward on that matter. I should like to see local initiatives to gain more participation from the grass roots level up rather than trying to impose a structured sport and recreation policy from the top, working down.
I should like to see more money put into local sport by linking local business with local schools and local newspapers. In one area, one could encourage a garage, say, to give a £500 donation to the Sports Aid Foundation for the development of sport and recreation in a local school, enabling it to highlight two or three people or a team and for the local paper to be linked in promoting it. So there is something in it for local business. We would begin by developing sports interest at a local level and bringing on the talent of tomorrow at school level and locally based in local communities.
There are a number of other problems in sport. All hon. Members will pay an enormous amount of respect and tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for the work that he has done in the Olympic movement. There is not one matter upon which hon. Members have touched that has not been of interest and concern to him during his years of involvement in sport and recreation. In the Olympic world, he has contributed to and participated in some new and imaginative thinking.
I shall add a few comments on which we will not find ourselves in total agreement. I am concerned that we are not looking more closely at a permanent site for the Olympic games. I am concerned about moving the games from one capital to another, with the overt political concentration that inevitably results from the world's press looking in on one site, as has been evident not only in Montreal and Munich but in Moscow and Los Angeles, and will inevitably feature in Seoul.
I am concerned that we are not trying to develop some imaginative thinking about a permanent site—I hope, in Greece. I should like to see it developed along the ideas and the organisational lines of the Vatican State. Greece would welcome the opportunity to be the host country, not

least because of the enormous amount of tourism and financial interest that would inevitably develop as a result of having the permanent site of the Olympic games in one country. That matter needs to be looked at further. Otherwise, I fear that the Olympic movement and the Olympic games will not survive our lifetime.
The abandonment of the Olympic Games will be an enormous loss to young people who, once every four years, at the pinnacle of sporting excellence, can get together and compete, not on the basis of any differences in colour, class or creed, but on the basis of respect for each other and the ability to compete as sportsmen.
Equally, I hope that the Olympic movement will recognise once and for all that we must move away from "shamateurism". It involves the idea that someone is an amateur simply because, even though we give them a large trust fund of £100,000 or £200,000 from which they may draw all their living and other expenses, every four years they compete as an amateur. That puts a totally unacceptable onus on a sportsman. We must move towards open games. I am not one of those who say that the moment a sportsman is paid, sport loses its original ethos, the appeal of the de Coubertin ideal, and the appeal of amateurs who used to enjoy sport but are suddenly corrupted as a result of the financial incentive. I do not believe that for a moment.
I do not believe that one achieves sporting excellence simply because one is paid. There is no doubt that Eastern bloc oarsmen are paid a fortune. They are effectively full-time professional oarsmen. There is no doubt that, when they are on the starting blocks of a race, they have everything to lose, and they are frightened of losing. Equally, there is no doubt that when young British eight is put on the starting blocks at the last minute to compete, with all the odds against them— probably even their own rowing association saying, "You will not have the money, you are not good enough to be selected"—they have everything to win and nothing to lose. At the end of the day, the urge to win is in their heads.
All athletes on the starting blocks at international Olympic events are technically superb. It is in their heads that the winners and losers are finally decided on the day. I do not believe those who argue that the moment sport becomes professional and the Olympic games become professional, the Olympic games are dead.
All hon. Members who have attended debates such as this will know that the one subject that I never pass by without a mention is the vital importance of Governments—not only Governments of both political persuasions in this country but Governments abroad—recognising that we have to continue to tackle the drug problem which besets modern day sport. It is nothing short of cheating to take drugs in sport. We should stamp it out with all the strength and commitment that we have at our disposal.
It should be absolutely essential for any governing body to accept random testing as a precondition of accepting Government or other sports grants. There should be random testing of every athlete. The Sports Council, which does admirable work, should be able to attend any training session of a national or international squad and test it. That should be a precondition of receipt of Government grant. We need to tackle drug abuse in sport with all the vigour at our disposal.
I endorse the remarks made about tobacco sponsorship. The voluntary agreement should be tough when we believe that there are important health and social reasons


to make it tough. As long as smoking is a legitimate activity in our society it will be quite wrong to take away the right and the opportunity for tobacco and tobacco-related companies to sponsor sport in this country. It is not just a matter of finance for sport; it is a fundamental matter of liberty in our democratic society.
There is no greater challenge facing those of us who love sport and believe in excellence in sport and participatiom than that which exists in the present education system. There is such a challenge in my constituency. It is exemplified by educationists telling the parents of boys and girls—young primary school kids who wish to compete in competitive primary school football leagues on Saturdays—that they do not believe in such sport because it breeds sexist and competitive instincts. That is not only educationally damaging—this view is shared by many hon. Members— but fundamentally mitigates against every child's inherent wish to perform, participate and strive for excellence in sport. That is especially so in primary schools in which half the football teams are made up of boys and girls. The idea that this breeds sexist instincts is wrong.
We must concentrate strongly on that area of educational policy and attack those who think otherwise. Then, and only then, will the grass roots— the youngsters— have the ability and the opportunity to excel. Only then will we have sports stars in the future and the international status that we have experienced and enjoyed in the past.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) made a thought-provoking speech that covered wide ground. I shall not attempt to refer to his remarks. I intend to keep my remarks brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on bringing forward the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are not sufficiently involved in sport. The fact that the Government do not have a Minister who is directly responsible for sport should be examined closely. A wide field of sporting endeavours could be brought together by using the available resources and ensuring that they are looked after and controlled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) did.
A number of problems have not been referred to this afternoon. I shall refrain from mentioning football because we are having a tough time in Newcastle and Sunderland. Reference has not been made to the leisure centres that have been established in areas such as mine. They have done a tremendous job for sport. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that an ice rink had had to close down in his constituency because the local authority would have been rate-capped if it had tried to keep it open.
Sunderland has a tremendous leisure centre. It provides us with the pleasure of an ice rink, an indoor bowling green, pool, snooker, squash and table tennis. Competitions are run on a regular basis. There are reduced fees for the unemployed and the young. Similar facilities are also provided in Gateshead, and there is another fine centre in Newcastle. These leisure centres have been doing a tremendous job in an area of high unemployment. If they were forced to increase their charges because of

restrictions on local government finance, the tragic result would be that people would be unable to afford to use them.
In the winter, old people use their bus passes after 9.30 am to go to the leisure centre in Sunderland. They have a warm day out and enjoy using the bowling facilities. They save money on fuel, and as they reach the centre for nothing, because of the travel concession, it represents a tremendous social wage for them. In the past, when there was just an outdoor bowling green, they had to wait throughout the winter before they could play bowls again, and by then some of them had died. They love their facilities at the leisure centre and their competitiveness is now being seen on our television screens.
The Club and Institute Union and the working men's clubs provide nationwide competitions and facilities. The Minister should try to find out where facilities of that nature are not provided. Local authority facilities are lying idle at the weekend. Given the will, sports facilities could be made much more widely available.
I had intended to say something about greyhound racing, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) has done such a good job that there is little more that I can add. May I point out, however, that the satellite service that is to be introduced in May will put greyhound racing at a tremendous disadvantage. If The Times feels that the story is important enough to get on to its front page and on to two inside pages, there is something to worry about.
If a bookmaker owns tracks and by means of the satellite information service distorts the odds and also tries to squeeze out the body that has governed greyhound racing for the last 60 years—the National Greyhound Racing Club—it should be incumbent on the Minister to find out why. The National Greyhound Racing Club should be involved in the development of satellite information services, but it is not being allowed to be involved. Their tracks are providing income for bookmakers. There is something the matter and it needs to be investigated. I am delighted that the question has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on initiating this debate. I hope that debates of this kind will take place much more frequently.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on initiating this debate. I shall speak about football. Hon. Members know that I have an interest in tennis and that I have been a Wimbledon umpire for a number of years. I enjoy cricket, too, and my height perhaps gives away the fact that I like horseracing as well. I was delighted by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on betting duty.
The point that I wish to raise concerns Leicester City football club at Filbert street, and the very courageous way in which it has tried to control crowd hooliganism and abuse on the terraces. The club has just been granted £100,000 to undertake a study of why there is crowd abuse. I gave oral evidence to the Popplewell inquiry. I knew John Fletcher extremely well and was on the same management board with him.
Proper membership cards are needed for all football clubs. Membership cards would cost money, but if the club's name was assigned to each member and if their names were logged on a central computer, nobody would be allowed into a football match without his card. If people abuse the system, they would no longer be eligible to go to their own or to any other football club. Regular miscreants would have their names published in the programmes of football clubs. It would be rather like a roll of shame. They would be barred from football matches and it would stamp out some of the problems.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Bruinvels: I should prefer to continue with my speech.
A number of video cameras are in place at Leicester City football club. They have caught some of the major offenders. There are stop-and-search powers to ensure that if people are carrying offensive weapons they are caught as they try to enter the ground. On Friday I hope that the House will approve my Crossbows Bill. A number of people have entered football grounds with crossbows hidden on their person. They are easily assembled once they are inside the ground, and 50p pieces or other coins have been used to take potshots at people on the other side of the terrace. There are also provisions relating to drinking.
The Act that prohibits the sale of alcohol at football grounds is welcome. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is probably aware of the loophole that if people go to a motorway service station they can tank up with alcohol at the same time as they tank up with petrol. They can then enter a football ground when they are well over the top. It is nonsense that the pubs surrounding a football ground should not be allowed to sell alcohol just before the start of a football match when supermarkets are able to sell alcohol to football fans before they go to a match.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Bruinvels: That point needs to be looked at urgently.
As for lighting at football grounds, no general provision is made for emergency lighting. Many football matches have been delayed because of a fault in the power supply. We should introduce proper emergency lighting regulations so that in the event, heaven help us, of a major disaster we could ensure, by having emergency lighting at all the exits, that the crowds were properly protected. In the event of an emergency they would be able to leave the ground quickly and safely.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) that there seems to be a general feeling in Labour-controlled authorities that it is a sin to win a match, or a cross-country race, or anything else. That is nonsense. Britain is a competitive country and sport, by its very nature, is competitive. We must encourage and allow competitive sports to continue.
My final point is on sponsorship. I welcome the continued sponsorship of sport, whether it relates to tobacco or alcohol. Ind Coope in my constituency has

sponsored Leicester City football club. It is still not winning, or very rarely winning. I would love to see it stay in the first division but I am very fearful for its future at the moment. It has an excellent team under Ian Wilson, the captain. I thank those sponsorship organisations for ensuring that competitive sport continues. Sport is a great recreation. It will not be allowed to die. Britain benefits by its leisure activities.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for giving us the opportunity to place on record the fact that sport is doing pretty well.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on introducing the debate at such an opportune moment. My constituents in Fulham have a particular concern in the problems that are facing sport at the present time. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I shall refer to the troublemakers who are associated with football, but a rather different group of troublemakers. I shall be talking about those troublemakers who are, in effect, no more than parasites and who have been acquiring football clubs—who are possibly considering acquiring other football clubs and other sporting organisations— not with a view to furthering the interests of the sport but purely with a view to making a personal gain out of exploiting a club's assets.
The affairs of Fulham football club in the last month have painted a sad and sorry picture of a gross act of misbehaviour by people who claim to have the interests of sport at heart, but who have revealed themselves to be crude asset-strippers simply trying to make a large personal gain out of the demolition of a proud football club. Fulham football club has had a long, proud tradition and it has a remarkable tradition of complete freedom from trouble at the ground. People can go week after week to Craven Cottage and enjoy a game of football, in the confident knowledge that there will be no crowd trouble and that there will be a pleasant, happy atmosphere and environment. Yet this club's survival has been put at risk by people who do not have the interests of football at heart but simply see it as an opportunity for property speculation.
Last summer, Marler Estates acquired control of Fulham football club. Despite the protestations of the chairman of Marler Estates at the time who claimed, rather like a wolf in sheep's clothing, that he was coming to save the club's fortunes and to help the club develop its potential and rebuild its fortunes on the field as well as its financial fortunes, it became clear that his long-term objective was property development of the site. Despite that, he gave many pledges of support for the club and its supporters. He gave pledges to myself and pledges in writing to the local newspaper. He said:
We have already stated that it is our intention to have Fulham playing at Craven Cottage, for the next few years at least.
That was printed in the Fulham Chronicle on 27 November 1986.
Imagine the feelings of everyone who cares about the future of football and about Fulham when less than three months later Mr. Bulstrode, the signatory of that letter, announced that he was merging Fulham with Queens Park Rangers, thus ending football at Craven Cottage, and that he intended to build luxury houses all over the site. That


would effectively have killed Fulham football club, when he had pledged three months earlier to keep it going for the next few years at least at Craven Cottage.
That announcement deeply shocked all those who are concerned with sport. Nevertheless, it led to a rapid rise in the share values of Marler Estates, which must have delighted, among others, the chief executive of the company, who had had the foresight to acquire a holding of 15 per cent. of the shares of the company just three weeks earlier.
There can be few more blatant and disgraceful examples of the unacceptable face of capitalism—crude asset-stripping accompanied by gross breaches of faith and bare-faced betrayal of promises. That was against a background which gives me real grounds for belief that there has been insider dealing in the shares of the company. That latter point is not a subject for debate this evening, so I shall say no more. I hope that the Minister with responsibilities for sport will urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take rapid action to investigate the affairs of Marler Estates in that respect.
We must focus on the sporting implications. We are in the middle of a fight to preserve Fulham football club against the wishes of Marler Estates to bulldoze the club and build luxury housing over the entire site. Against that, there has been an impressive response from supporters of the club. The local authority organised a remarkably well-attended public meeting—again, completely trouble-free—which showed the strength of feeling of supporters and well wishers of the club to keep Fulham at Craven Cottage. The football league has made clear its opposition to the proposed merger, and to that extent the proposals of Marler Estates have at least been halted.
We need to go further. We need to explore positive alternatives to keep Fulham at Craven Cottage. There is a positive alternative. The club is sitting on a huge potential asset—there is no point in hiding the huge land values—because of the grossly inflated prices in land in Fulham and other inner-city areas. If used positively, such land can provide a safeguard for sporting institutions that have these land assets. The use of those assets to provide redeveloped grounds and improved facilities for the club—possibly with a subsidy to help the club operate in the future if gates are low—is a positive way of looking at the matter rather than simply stripping the assets for private greed.
Two weeks ago, in front of the all-party football committee, Mr. Bulstrode, the chairman of Marler Estates, gave an undertaking that he would explore such an alternative, and members of that committee were pleased to hear it. Despite those pledges, within a few days Mr. Bulstrode was pouring cold water on the possibility and issued threats to sack the staff and players at Fulham. What a dreadful background for the staff at Fulham football club and players to try to keep on playing football, with no certainty that they will have their jobs from one week to the next because of the behaviour of their chairman. That is staggering behaviour from someone who pledged at the end of last year that it was his intention to keep the club playing at the site and safeguarded its future. That behaviour is unacceptable in any walk of life and people who are capable of that degree of duplicity are unfit to control the future fortunes of any football club.
Survival of the club depends on firm action to resist the chairman's intentions. The local authority has shown the way and it led a magnificent campaign to save the ground. I regret that up until now the Government have not shown such enthusiasm and determination, but I gather that today the Minister has taken action to spot-list certain buildings at Craven Cottage, which will put a further obstacle in the path of Marler Estates and prevent a total redevelopment of the site. If that is so, I must congratulate the Minister on taking, albeit belatedly, positive steps in support of Fulham football club to make it clear that we have a combined purpose in ensuring the survival of football and not allowing property speculators to close football clubs.
I hope that the message will go out loud and clear to Mr. Bulstrode, Marler Estates and any other speculators who want to strip the assets of football clubs and other sporting institutions, that we shall not accept it, we shall not tolerate it; there are more important values and we must defend them. We must ensure that clubs are able to continue to play the sport which they are in existence to play and give entertainment to the public. Clubs' assets should be used for the public's benefit, not the personal greed of individual speculators.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief and endeavour to sit down just after 8 o'clock, but I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Indeed, it is a very important debate and I hope that the Minister will not only take note of what has been said by many hon. Members in all parts of the House but will take action on the valid points that have been raised in such an articulate way.
May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on what I consider to be a most outstanding speech from the Back Benches. His knowledge of sport is well known. His contribution to the sports of rowing and boxing is exceptionally well known and I congratulate him on making such an important speech in the debate.
I also pay my respect to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). His involvement in sport is well known and greatly respected. Hon. Members from both sides of the House are united on many issues. Perhaps the message from the debate is that many of the points that have been made are shared across party barriers. My hon. Friend the Minister would be well advised to accept the advice that he has been given by the House.
Let me briefly, in the one or two minutes at my disposal, raise one or two issues that have already been taken up. One relates to local authority playing fields. I share the concern expressed by many hon. Members and by the Central Council of Physical Recreation about what is happening to many local authority playing fields. They are being taken out of sport and developed, and that is wrong. It must be wrong for the local authorities in whose areas they are located and it must be wrong for sport and recreation in Britain, particularly its provision for young people.
I was present at the annual general meeting of the Central Council of Physical Recreation when His Royal Highness Prince Philip made a dramatic speech. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell),


a distinguished member of the council, was present, and I hope that that speech has been noted by my hon. Friend the Minister.
I am also deeply concerned because many such sports fields are located in the centre of our urban areas and cities. Once they have been lost, they will be gone for ever. Even if they are replaced, they are replaced many miles away. With transport costs as they are today, it is unacceptable that young people in particular should be expected to go many miles in order to participate in sport of any sort.
I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister that he intercede with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the spending of the capital receipts of local authorities. It is outrageous that my authority of Macclesfield should have been forced to borrow money when it had money in the bank from receipts from council house sales, and in the general rate fund from the sale of land and other properties that was not required by the borough council in the foreseeable future. The council should have been able to spend that money to build the swimming bath that was so urgently required in Macclesfield. A further debt had to be incurred which was a liability on the ratepayer, despite the council having money in the bank. For some extraordinary Treasury reason, the authority was not permitted to spend it. I hope that my hon. Friend, representing sporting interests, will take such points on board so that sport does not suffer in this way.
Several sporting clubs in my constituency, particularly the Poynton sports club, are concerned about the amount of money that has to be paid in rates. I hope that my hon. Friend will give emphatic guidance to local authorities that they should use their discretionary powers to grant substantial rate relief—in many cases, 100 per cent. relief. Sport is important. Local private clubs can provide facilities, often much more cheaply than the local authority. Therefore, that is money well spent.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath wishes to speak and I have been longer than I promised, but coming from an area which has the Silkmen football club and many leading lights in the sporting world—Martin Edwards, the chairman of Manchester United and even Hurricane Higgins, the snooker player who has not necessarily always behaved as everybody would wish—I feel deeply involved in sport and I know how valuable it is to the community. Will my hon. Friend take the advice of the House and act?

Mr. Denis Howell: There is so much to say, and so little time in which to say it, but we have had a wonderful debate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) summed it up. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for the opportunity that he has afforded us, in conjunction, I suspect, with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who also tried for a debate.
What has come out of the debate more than anything else is something which the nation and certainly our colleagues in the House, even more so the Treasury often fail to understand. As the Minister and I know from our rival experiences, and as ministerial colleagues often fail to understand, sport is vital to the life of Britain.
Wherever one looks at present, whether at areas of social stress in inner cities, Britain's general recreation, the evils of unemployment and its enforced leisure, at people who retire earlier and live longer international affairs, Britain's role and the esteem in which we are held in international affairs, are all personified through sport.
When I was the Minister with responsibility for sport I sometimes thought, as I am sure the Minister does, that we were running the Government. I thought that were were running the Home Office over hooliganism. South Africa—mercifully, the hon. Member for Luton, North did not talk about that today—the Olympic Games in Moscow and whether the East was wrong not to go to Los Angeles are matters of international importance. They are all questions understood by the British people through sport. That is why sport is so vital. When we get it wrong, as we do so often on our housing estates and in our inner cities, we pay the price. We cannot fail to pay the price. We either provide facilities for people to enjoy themselves, or we pick up the tab for violence, hooliganism and vandalism on our estates and in our communities. We must get the Treasury and everyone else to understand that. So many problems arise from boredom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) said eloquently that sport is the means by which people express their individual personalities. That is its great contribution to our national life. Sport, and team sport in particular, is the means by which we learn to relate to our fellows—to win well and to lose gracefully. Those are lessons of tremendous importance to the nation.
If ever one goes to Covent Garden, one cannot fail to be inundated by permanent secretaries whom one never sees at Wembley or any of the other sporting meccas. In the British Council's report which came into my hands today, despite its £221 million spending power, there was not one word about sport. There was not one word about how the British Council sees its job of projecting sport throughout the world as a British interest. All its money is spent on cultural pursuits. Nobody objects to its work on the culture front, but it is out of balance, as we so often see in the Treasury and elsewhere.
The Sports Council grant is disgraceful. I do not blame the Minister. He was not present when the grants were decided this year. I prefer to believe that, because he already has a feel for sport. It is ridiculous that the Secretary of State for the Environment should fix the grants without consulting the Sports Council and certainly, if what I have been told is true, the Minister.
Although a two-year grant was decided upon, as the hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned, nobody in his wildest dreams thought that the grant for the second year would not be increased in line with inflation. This has never happened before with any other quango. It is always understood that inflation is allowed for in succeeding years. That is the Sports Council's grievance, and justifiably so.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the British Olympic committee. The committee, according to the information with which it has supplied me for this debate, wants to do a great deal in providing medical services. It should be encouraged to do things in the medical field—psychological and physiological testing, medical screening and so on, for which it does not get a penny.
The British Olympic Association is unique in the world. As far as I can discover, it is the only Olympic association


in the world that does not receive a penny from the Government and pays abnormal taxes out of the money that it raises to send British Olympic teams abroad. That cannot possibly be right and I draw the attention of the Government to it. We definitely need to put that right.
When I was a Minister, I tried to get my colleagues in the Government, and particularly in the Department of Trade, to understand that many other countries recognise the importance of international sports provision. They send ambassadors abroad, they train people, the Government pay money to exert their influence, whether it be China, the Soviet Union, Cuba or any other country. They understand that their influence will be felt as a result of training. Their architects build stadiums and training facilities throughout the world, and that aid through sport is understood, particularly in Asia, Africa and South America, as the means by which they extend their influence. We in this country have not even started to think along those lines. Perhaps I could make common cause with the Minister, because I am sure that he shares these views. He has been abroad with me on the Birmingham Olympic campaign, where his assistance was very much valued. That represented a joint national effort and I hope that we can get more in that area.
We must talk about the decline, because of the cuts in our sports facilities. I had a terribly depressing statistic from the Amateur Swimming Association. Does the House know that 48 per cent. fewer children are being taught to swim now than was the case five years ago? That is the result of cuts in education, the increase in transportation costs and the increase in the cost of hiring swimming baths. That is a disgraceful statistic and it is a disgraceful situation that is facing the country.
We know, too, that the Sports Council is at the moment considering a consultants' report which recommends for example, that the swimming pool at Crystal Palace should be closed. Nothing could be more crazy. It is the only swimming pool in the south of England that is capable of taking international diving and water polo as well as general recreational swimming. I hope that that is kicked into touch. I hope that the Minister will tell the Sports Council not to waste another minute on the question of closing down the Crystal Palace pool. I hope that he will also look into the decline in swimming in our schools, which is a matter of national concern.
I should like—and the House would expect me to do so—to spend a moment praising the revolution in leisure that has been going on in Birmingham. I think that the Minister knows about it. I am glad to see him nod his head. We have got over the problem of not using our schools out of school hours during the week, because immediately 4 o'clock comes, and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, the control of the swimming baths, the sports fields and the sports halls passes to the leisure department and they are used for general community purposes. There has been a tremendous revolution as a result of that thinking, but I must say to the Minister that if this is to happen throughout the country, political initiative is necessary. Somebody has to take the lead. Somebody has to break the bureaucracy that is stopping us using the facilities that are already there. That is, indeed, what we expect of the Government.
Nothing could be more important than school sport, because it is the foundation stone of all British sport. If people have not developed a love of sport by the time they leave school at 16, if they have not been taught the skills,

our national and international sport will he in decline. One need only think of tennis to see the obvious truth of that statement.
I am glad to pay a tribute to the Inner London education authority, because it has been rather maligned, although I noted what the hon. Member for Luton, North said in this connection. I have looked into this matter in some detail and have come to the conclusion that there are very few local authorities doing more for sport, team sport and excellence in sport, than ILEA. For example, it has schools of special ability in cricket, table tennis, lawn tennis, gymnastics, volleyball and basketball. It is one of the few educational authorities that actually bring coaches into the primary schools. It has done a deal with the Surrey county cricket club to bring cricketers into the primary schools to foster a love of sport. That is in every way commendable and ILEA should be praised for doing it.
I know that the deputy chairman, Mr. Bernard Wiltshire, has invited Professor Peter Macintosh to head a working party. What he wants to do, he says, is not drive out team sports, but to make them popular again. It has been reported to me that after all the trouble that there has been with school sport, there is an increase in the number of team sports being undertaken on Saturdays in the ILEA area, and all of us will welcome that.
The Central Council of Physical Recreation has done a tremendous job of work. I speak as a former chairman, although I have worked with it mainly since I left office. I am glad to pay tribute to the council for the way in which it keeps everybody on their toes. Often people in the sports council of this House do not like it, but we need gadflies about in sport, stinging here and there, and if people can defend themselves, they ought not to worry about that.
The council has provided me with a lot of information and I shall quote in juxtaposition two statements about the health and sport of our youngsters in society. First, this is the Home Office in 1986:
The Young Offenders Act which established Youth Custody Centres requires two hours per week compulsory physical education training for offenders aged between 15 and 21.
So far so good, but the Health Education Council and Physical Education Association survey of schools in the west midlands said:
83 per cent. of children are engaged in less than five minutes' vigorous activity per day.
In other words, if a young person has been sentenced to custody because he is a wrongdoer he will be fitter and have more facilities for sport than if he is in a school. That cannot be right.
One of the most distressing things is the failure of colleges of education to provide physical education teachers. The situation is now reaching crisis proportions, and this is something that I hope the Minister will look into, especially as so many PE colleges have been closed down. I am thinking of those at Dartford, St. Luke's, Exeter and Nonnington, Kent. This is a serious matter. There is now a shortage of PE teachers within the teaching profession, and it is important that we pay some attention to the situation. I hope that the Minister can use his influence with his colleagues in another Department to get them to understand the situation.
With regard to the Sports Council, I took note of what was said earlier about keeping a balance and not interfering too much in sport, I did not support the royal charter when it was first issued to the Sports Council, but I believed that it was there to protect and maintain its


independence, particularly from the Department of the Environment. I am worried that increasingly the Sports Council seems to be becoming sucked into the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Minister will tell us what Mr. Teasdale is doing now that he has been seconded from the Department of the Environment. I know that it is only for a short time and that he will be going back, but he is now working full time.
Mr. Teasdale has done some good work in his time, and I am not casting any personal reflections on him, but he ought not to be there; he ought not to be in an institution with a royal charter. We can all imagine what the BBC would say if suddenly it was told to take on an official from the Home Office who had been in charge of broadcasting. If that happened there would be uproar throughout Britain. A royal charter ought to be as honoured and as hallowed in sport as it is in broadcasting. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
About 550 school playing grounds are up for sale. This is disgraceful. If the school population is going down, the youth population must be going up. If some school playing fields are not fully used, they should be taken over for use by the community. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) and other hon. Members who talked about the vital importance of football and football clubs. We must ask the football authorities to look at their regulations, because nobody should be able to corner any of our football clubs. Shareholding should be strictly limited.
I hope that local authorities will use their powers to prevent planning applications that change the nature of football clubs. Grounds in the middle of our built-up conurbations must be protected as lungs. If the football clubs leave their grounds, they should be used by the local authority for general sport and recreation—even if it is necessary to make a compulsory purchase order. I am now dealing only in headlines. VAT on sport and rates are important subjects for discussion and we shall have to come back to them. In the context of tax on sport, I ask the Minister to ensure that British sport does not suffer compared to European sport. We entered the European Community because we believed in harmonisation, but we are not getting harmonisation in British sport. There is no time to talk about Playboard, but I hope that the Minister will do what he can about that.
Many hon. Members have spoken about violence in sport. Anything that is unlawful on the streets of Britain must be unlawful on the playing field, and administrators, referees and everyone involved should make sure that that is the case. I believe that Sunday racing will come. The two correspondents Brough Scott and Richard Baerlein have written about this and the only thing that I add to what they have said is the advice that I gave the Jockey Club when we met its representatives in Committee—do not get mixed up in Sunday trading. This is Sunday sport, and should be treated as such. Certainly there should be negotiations with the trade unions, which have every right to be fully consulted.
Again I thank the Minister for supporting Birmingham's Olympic bid. That bid has produced about £60 million in investment in the city, so we have had a very good return, which shows the importance of the international role of sport. The Government ought to

think again about financial support for Olympic and Commonwealth initiatives, and it is important for the Government to be seen to do so. Sport is vital to the life of the community.
I calculate that it is five years since the House last discussed sport. I hope that we will discuss it much more frequently in future, because all hon. Members are united in the view that one of the essential purposes of sport is to unite the nation. We agree on that, whatever other divisions we might have. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, this debate has shown that hon. Members in all parts of the House are united in declaring the importance of sport and are determined to see that it gets a fair deal from Governments of any colour.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I congratulate hon. Members on a good-natured and interesting debate on this important subject. There has obviously been a great deal of cross-party agreement. I certainly congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who in his usual good-natured way has raised a whole range of topics and given the House a good opportunity to discuss the important subject of sport in our nation.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that we ought to have more debates on sport. I would welcome that, too, and only three weeks ago we hoped to have such a debate when my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) put down an excellent motion congratulating the Government, the football authorities and the police on their work in combating football hooliganism. That was to follow a debate on the inner cities, but because of some rather lengthy speeches by Opposition Members I am afraid that we did not reach that motion. It would have been a great opportunity to discuss sport but we could not take it up on that occasion.
In this debate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that he wished for more Government involvement. Perhaps he suggests that I have some bigger job. I consider that I have been greatly involved. I have now been doing the job for less than 18 months but in my first year I attended well over 400 sports events, even though I was not able to make a great number of speeches in the House about sport. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was in the job for 11 years and certainly managed to extend into wind and water. He seems to be quite renowned for stopping or starting the rain—I forget which it was.
In the context of more Government involvement, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said that the Government get intervention in sport about right and I think that that view is widely held by my hon. Friends. We also get financial involvement about right. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want some kind of Eastern European involvement in sport because along with that sort of attitude come various other attitudes that are certainly not desirable. I think that the right hon. Member for Small Heath would agree that the governing bodies of sport would not wish to see the kind of intervention that would follow the much more dirigist policies followed in sport by eastern European countries.
The debate focused on the problems of sport. Not surprisingly, many points were made about finance. One of the most compelling problems facing sport is behaviour on the field of play. Many hon. Members spoke about that


and, as is well known, the Government are doing a great deal about crowd violence. From time to time we talk to the governing bodies and ask them to exercise better control over players. Late in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) spoke about drug taking. I shall return to that later in my speech.
First, I shall deal with the problem of crowd violence that is associated with football. We are well aware of the disastrous effects that a minority hooligan element has had in recent years on our national sport. That has had disastrous consequences for our country's reputation and for our prestige abroad. That is clear from the attitudes that continue to be taken by the European football authority, UEFA. Regrettably, football-related hooliganism is not the sort of problem that lends itself to an immediate or single solution. Through our partnership approach we have worked hard to develop a package of measures designed to ensure public safety and the future well-being of the game.
Crowd disorder at football matches is not a new phenomenon. Football is a physical sport that has traditionally aroused passions and emotions on the field and in the stands. In recent years football has witnessed a truly tragic shift from rowdy but largely good-natured behaviour amongst spectators to appalling acts of violence. I pay tribute to clubs such as Luton and Leicester—raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels)—and so many other clubs such as Watford and Wimbledon which are doing what they can to combat this unfortunate hooliganism. The Government and the football authorities have introduced far-reaching measures to clamp down hard to try to wipe out hooliganism.
The Government have introduced stringent controls on the sale and possession of alcohol inside grounds and on transport to fixtures. We are providing the courts with powers to ban troublemakers from attending matches and we have tightened up fire and safety requirements throughout the Football League. The Football Association has revised ground regulations and has tightened up on disciplinary procedures. We have seen the first-class effects of installing closed circuit television throughout the first and second divisions, and the Football League is now proceeding to install that facility, with the valuable help of the Football Trust, in the third and fourth divisions. We believe that we shall see further improvements in the behaviour of football supporters across this country because unless there is a deep-seated improvement, the prospect of our English clubs returning to Europe are dim and distant. I appeal to the spectators to remember that football relies for its reputation very much on their good behaviour.
I pay tribute to the work that is being done in the clubs to bring back local community involvement. That very important work touches closely on the community involvement in general that was so well addressed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) in his excellent speech. It was good to hear what he had to say about what should be happening in the community, with sport very much as a driving force, and I hope that more clubs will be able to do this.
I share the views expressed by several hon. Members that it was a short-sighted approach by the football authorities when they put a moratorium on artificial pitches. Recently, for a whole day, I was present at Preston North End where the chairman was beside himself with

frustration at the action that had been taken by the Football League when he, the chairman, was doing all he could to attract revenue into his ground at Preston North End.
I saw that pitch, during the whole day that I was there, being used by the schools and by various members of the community. I understand that the ground is hired by fathers for birthday parties for their sons. We should be seeing that sort of spirit in football clubs throughout the country. For the moment that effort has been cut short by the football authorities, but I hope they will think again about it.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) raised—not surprisingly—the question of mergers of football clubs and the threat of redevelopment at various football grounds. I would find it always deeply saddening if an historic club were to lose its home and its link with the local community. We need to keep some sense of proportion about this issue.
Football clubs are private companies limited by guarantee. It is for their directors to decide who they should respond to market pressures if they are to keep in business. Football clubs have to move much closer to their communities if they are to survive. Only a handful of clubs are in the black, and too many football clubs are seriously in the red and beholden to the banks.
The Football League should address the question of mergers and shareholdings through their regulations. That view is shared by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. The League must carefully scrutinise applications for registration and re-registration so that they can truly take care of the game that we proudly say is our national game.
There is some light on the horizon for Fulham football club. This matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Fulham—who was slightly cynical in his remarks—and I was grateful to hear him acknowledge that today my right hon. Friend, following advice from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, has formally listed as buildings of architectural and historic interest several of the buildings and structures surrounding the pitch, which date from 1905. That is an indication of the particular interest that the Government have taken in Fulham football club, this historic ground, Craven Cottage and the related stand accommodation which is part of the heritage of football.
I now turn to the loss of recreational ground and pitches. We have to keep this in proportion. Today there are approximately 160 more swimming pools and 600 more sports halls than in 1979 when this Government were first returned to office. Between 1982 and 1985 there were created 127 new natural turf pitches, and a further 50 synthetic all-weather pitches have been laid since the early 1970s. This is an indication of a very important growth of resources for mass participation in sport in this country.
I am pleased that the Sports Council has formed a joint working party with other interested groups to consider ways of co-operating and protecting recreational land. We desperately need accurate statistics of these related problems. My Department will be looking closely at the results of the working party and at any recommendations made by it.
Loss of playing fields was mentioned by the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). In recent times it has been brought to my attention that Labour authorities in Ealing and Brent are planning to build houses on playing fields.


Will the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde be able to do something about that? As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, I bring to his attention a problem in my borough of Kingston upon Thames where the Liberal-SDP council is also planning to build houses on two sports playing fields. I have taken up that matter with the chairman of the recreation committee and I have chided him, this very day, on returning to me just a one-line reply—when I asked for reassurance—saying that he has taken note of my comments. More than that is required before the Opposition party can tell the Government that they ought to be doing more about this disgraceful situation to which we are addressing ourselves.
Coming to finance, the Sports Council grant has been mentioned. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was being somewhat mischievous when he suggested that I was in no way consulted by my right hon. Friend about the sports grant. The truth is that the Sports Council last year received the biggest increase that it has ever had—£6·372 million—and it was told at the time that that was an increase for two years. That was a real terms increase of 16 per cent.
It is no good the right hon. Member for Small Heath complaining. When he left office, the Sports Council grant was £15 million, and it now receives £37 million, a real terms increase, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box, of 42 per cent. during the period of this Government. That is perfectly good evidence of the first-class support that we are giving to a strengthened Sports Council.
In my time as Minister responsible for sport I have strengthened the Sports Council by introducing the regional chairmen. We now have a flow of information on sport from our regions so that we are involving the local authorities, who are members of the regional sports councils, in communication with us here at the central Sports Council. Local authorities can give sports clubs a 100 per cent. rates discretion, any rebate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North spoke about tobacco sponsorship. It seems that there is some difference on the Opposition Benches about that. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is against it, and the right hon. Member for Small Heath is in favour of it. We have a balanced approach, as we have in all matters of sport, and as we shall continue to have.
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out again the Government's dedication to the sport of this nation which we consider so important to our people.

Orders of the Day — Industrial Relations

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I begin by apologising for the state of my voice. Yesterday, I was visiting nursing homes in my constituency and the combination of the deafness of the inmates and my attempts to communicate with them has resulted in my finding it difficult to address the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of trade unions and industrial relations. I believe that it is of great importance as we discuss the next step forward in the Government's plans for trade union reform.
In May 1979, the Government were presented with a situation of chaotic trade union power and militancy which had been encouraged by labour legislation between 1974 and 1976. The unions had excessive bargaining power which led to wage demands far outstripping inflation. Strike was the only response and trade union immunity from legal action had been so extended that as a result industrial action was licensed even if it were directed against those far removed from the dispute.
While there has been much play from the Liberal party and elsewhere that we should not dwell on the events of the period 1977–79, my right hon. and hon. Friends should spend some time considering those matters as they consider their plans for the future. It is constructive to remember that in 1977 a Gallup poll showed that 53 per cent. of the population believed that Jack Jones was more powerful than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who was a much younger man then. Some 76 per cent. thought that the country was in a serious economic difficulty and, despite the Lib-Lab pact, 73 per cent. thought that the Liberals had little or no influence on Government policy.
I must not dwell on those unhappy times. Suffice it to say that matters came to a head in 1979 with the infamous winter of discontent when the myth that Labour could work with the unions was finally laid to rest. Action taken by workers involved strikes in the motor and haulage industries, bakeries, on the railways and in local authorities. Cancer patients were turned away from hospitals, refuse was piled high in the streets, while pickets blocked entry of food into our ports. Ambulance men threatened to refuse to answer 999 calls and, in Liverpool, even the dead lay unburied.
The Prime Minister of the day openly admitted that the Government were impotent to reduce unemployment. Mrs. Williams cheerfully admitted that there was
no real answer to the rising youth unemployment.
Today, she tells a different tale.

Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely what the unemployment figure was when the last Labour Prime Minister made that statement? If he cannot tell us, I will tell him. It was 1,300,000. It had come down every month since 1977. Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us what the unemployment figure is now, after eight years of Tory Government?

Mr. Forsyth: I can do rather better. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what a Minister in his Government said in 1978, writing in the Glasgow Herald. One of his colleagues predicted that there would be 3 million unemployed within five years and said that to blame any Government for that did not get us very far. He went on to demonstrate that


it was part of the demographic effect. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be able to confirm that a Minister in their Government predicted that there would be 3 million unemployed. Under his Government, unemployment doubled and the leader of his party claimed that they were impotent to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Don Dixon: What about unemployment now?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should read the writings of his colleague the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who was quite authoritative on that matter.
When they were elected, the Conservative Government were determined not only to tackle the problems of unemployment but to restore the balance of industrial relations between the employers and the trade unions, which had been so distorted under Labour. They also wanted to make union leaders more accountable to members.
With all the talk from the Liberal-SDP alliance of the need to have pacts to moderate Governments, the period of the Lib-Lab pact did not restore Britain's economic fortunes or bring the trade unions to heel. The pact's aims were to make some progress in devolution, to get direct elections to the European Parliament under proportional representation and to get through the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Only the last of those aims was achieved, with a shoddy, ill-drafted measure which has created immense misery and the effects of which every hon. Member has to face in every surgery every week. That was the sole achievement of the Lib-Lab pact other than maintaining in office a Government that went on to nationalise and preside over a disastrous period in industrial relations.
The price of that pact was trade union militancy, spiralling economic decline and the winter of discontent, 10 million working days lost during 1979 and the spectacle of Mrs. Shirley Williams on the Grunwick picket line. Despite that, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), as recently as 3 December 1986, said:
that was one of the best periods of Government that Britain has had for a very long time."—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106. c. 1039.]
I hope that in the forthcoming election, whenever it comes, the alliance will not be promising us that.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the efforts that have been made by the Government through existing legislation. As one who has been cynical about the step-by-step approach, I must admit that it has been an immense success. So far, we have removed legal immunity from unions when taking certain unacceptable forms of action such as sympathy strikes, blacking and picketing away from the place of work. We have provided public funds for ballots of trade union members on such issues as strikes, election of officials and amending union rules. We have made unions liable to injunctions for damages when they are responsible for unlawful industrial action. We have made the legal immunity of trade unions in organising industrial action conditional on holding a secret ballot to be held before the trade unions endorse a call for action.
We have ensured that every voting member of the trade unions' governing bodies is subject to election directly and by secret ballot of union members once every five years. We have given union members the chance to ballot every 10 years on the continuance of the political fund. We have

compensated those who were dismissed from closed shops between 1974 and 1980 and provided for a regular review by secret ballot of closed shops. We have given employers the possibility of dismissing, without having to face unfair dismissal claims, those taking industrial action, provided all those taking part at a particular workplace on a particular day are dismissed.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who elected the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) as vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman is always at pains to diminish the influence of the Scottish Conservative party and the nature of its influence in Scotland, I find it surprising that he should seek to compare the question of democracy and accountability of the trade unions to the internal workings of a political party. However, looking at his own party's record in the Division Lobbies, I can see that it does not treat it with the same seriousness as I do.
Our legislation has succeeded in its aims, not only of restoring a balance to industrial relations but in making trade union leaders more accountable to their members. It is no coincidence that the number of strikes has recently been at its lowest for nearly 50 years. For example, the National Union of Railwaymen voted three times against any strike action between August 1985 and July 1986 in defiance of its leadership. Under the previous Labour Government, working days lost through industrial unrest reached 29·5 million in 1979 alone. The figure for 1986 is 1·9 million.

Mr. Evans: What about 1984?

Mr. Forsyth: The miners' strike of 1984 showed only too clearly the need for legislation, coming as it did before the Trade Union Act 1984. The Prime Minister said at the time that it was "a dispute about the right to go to work of those who have been denied the right to go to vote."
That right ought to have been guaranteed to them by the National Union of Mineworkers' rules. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may make no justified criticism of the Conservative party in implementing its own rules, but I should like to think that he would criticise the way in which the NUM behaved in terms of failing to implement its rules. Had they been followed, a national strike could have been entered upon only as the result of a ballot vote of the members, with the support of a simple majority of those voting. However, Mr. Scargill continually refused to hold a national secret ballot. The issue of a secret ballot dominated the strike and showed the Labour party's contempt for union democracy.
Better industrial relations have been recently reflected by the growing number of long-term pay settlements, often secured in exchange for more flexible working practices and no-strike agreements. For example, the Electrical, Electronic, Plumbing and Telecommunications union has negotiated such deals with Sanyo, Toshiba and Hitachi. The Green Paper represents a further step forward in that process of giving rights to trade union members. I particularly welcome the proposal to give union members the right to restrain their union from authorising or endorsing industrial action involving a breach of employment contracts where a union has not obtained majority support from those taking part in the action in


a strike ballot and the right for union members not to be subject to disciplinary measures by a trade union for refusing to take industrial action.
The Wapping dispute serves well to illustrate the necessity of those measures. If they had been in force at that time any SOGAT wholesale worker could have obtained an order restraining his union from calling a strike without balloting the wholesale workers—which is what SOGAT failed to do. An individual member could have saved his union from financial ruin. As Brenda Dean, general secretary of SOGAT, said in the Financial Times on 20 February 1987:
the lesson for me is that you can't postpone change, and you certainly can't stop change. If you attempt the results are so often much more unpleasant for the very people one is trying to protect.
If only those who have positions of authority in the trade unions in the Caterpiller factory had followed that advice. Yet again, we see the dinosaurs of the trade union movement leading the workers up a blind alley at considerable cost to their families.

Mr. James Hamilton: The Secretary of State for Scotland condemns the Caterpiller Tractor Company and criticises the men for the action they have taken. The men were provoked. They were promised a £62·5 million investment and then after three months the whole factory was thrown into disarray and 1,221 men lost their jobs. What would the hon. Gentleman, as a man with any backbone, do in a situation such as that?

Mr. Forsyth: The first thing I would do would be to ensure that the workers were given a secret ballot to decide what sort of action they should take.

Mr. Hamilton: There was a secret ballot at the outset.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows that there was considerable dissension among the work force on the question of continuing the occupation of the plant. By refusing to give the work force a secret ballot on the decision to continue the occupation of the plant, I believe that the trade union members responsible showed a degree of irresponsibility that was, to say the least, worrying. The consequences for those men will be that their families will be poor and the prospects of finding an alternative use for the plant are that more remote.
There are far too many people in the Labour party who are much more concerned about leading great crusades and winning headlines than about looking after the long-term interests of the work force. That was reflected in the conduct of those who refused a ballot for the work force. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's criticism of the management, but, at the end of the day, the only way in which the dispute will be settled is if the management and the trade union representatives get round the table and get the best possible deal for the work force to secure the future of the plant. One does not do that by indulging in sit-ins and pyrotechnic displays for the benefit of the media.
In considering the Green Paper, I believe that the statutory duty on trade union trustees not to apply union funds in contravention of the terms of court orders is a

vital measure. In the light of the experiences of the past few years, the right of trade union members to inspect their union's detailed accounts is also important.
Further steps to remove trade union immunity from industrial action to establish or maintain a closed shop are important, as is an extension of the statutory election requirement to cover the election of all trade union executive members, presidents and general secretaries. That measure would prevent people such as Mr. Scargill from waiving their voting rights in return for a seat for life on the committee. It is also important to provide a new commissioner for trade union affairs to pursue any improvements in the conduct of elections, as identified by a certification officer.
The legislative programme of the Labour party is deliberately designed to enhance trade union power in Government and society. The Labour party is committed to repealing all the trade union legislation that has been introduced by this Government. The TUC-Labour party document on industrial relations entitled "People at Work: New Rights, New Responsibilities" gives details of the Labour party's proposals.

Mr. Evans: It is a splendid document.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a splendid document. I am glad that he is prepared to endorse it because its
new framework would in no way give employers, or their customers or suppliers, any opportunity to seek damages agains unions.
In addition, there are plans to legalise secondary picketing and secondary action and to strengthen the closed shop.

Mr. Evans: It is all about democracy.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that it is all about democracy. However, the document states:
any future legal framework must include provisions encouraging trade union membership".
In other words, it seeks a coercive closed shop and to end pre-strike ballots. The document continues:
trade union members also seek and expect rights to secret ballots on strikes … (but) not necessarily before a strike … but within a reasonable time if the strike continues.
It is difficult to find out what the alliance parties believe. However, if one considers their record, none of the SDP leaders voted against any of the trade union legislation that was introduced between 1974 and 1976 by the Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) voted against the Employment Act 1980. The alliance split three ways on the Employment Act 1982. Liberal Members and 17 SDP Members voted for its Second Reading, while five SDP Members voted against it. A further five Members of Parliament abstained or were absent. Liberal Members also voted for the Third Reading, while the SDP abstained with the exception of their then employment spokesman who voted against it.
In its document entitled "Industrial Relations: A Fresh Look", the SDP argues strongly for positive rights for trade unions and includes proposals to undermine the effectiveness of pre-strike ballots and to reinforce the closed shop. Pre-strike ballots would no longer be compulsory and would be required only when at least 10 per cent. of the work force involved demanded one. To establish a closed shop only 66 per cent. of the work force would be needed to secure approval. Subsequent reviews of the closed shop would be held only if a set proportion of the work force demanded them.
I have no desire to dwell on the policies of the Opposition parties. Suffice it to say that they would take us back to the period of the Lib-Lab pact, remove the rights of trade union members, and restore power to the trade union barons.

Mr. Bruce: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) shakes his head, but I refer him to a comment made by Lord Grimond in July 1977. He had some worries about the Lib-Lab pact and showed a certain perspicacity because his prediction came to pass. He said that he was worried that the pact might
entrench a Conservative closed-shop type of bureaucratic Socialism
which would mean the death of Liberalism forever. His prophetic words have come to pass.
I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister on the success of his policies. I urge him to press ahead with the Green Paper proposals. Britain has been transformed from the mayhem of the Lib-Lab pact into a country in which the number of working days lost is the lowest since 1963, and less than one fifth of the days lost in 1977 and 1978. During the Government of the Lib-Lab pact, there were 4,300 disputes, with the loss of 15·9 million working days. Opposition Members cannot escape that, because that is their record.
Today the CBI forecast record orders and prospects for our country. The budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor offers hope of a complete transformation in our economic position,. None of that would have happened under a hung Parliament or under the policies of Opposition Members, and they must face up to that. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to continue with the step-by-step approach and to take some wider steps.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Perhaps I was a little naive to think that we would have a constructive debate on trade unions, especially as the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). We certainly had an extraordinarily wide-ranging speech from him and one or two of his points deserve some response.
In his rather selective way, the hon. Member tried to draw conclusions from a period some years ago. I do not propose to go over that period, other than to point out that unemployment and inflation decreased and that for a short time there was a degree of stability in the economy which had not been there previously. There was also the appointment of the first-ever Cabinet Minister for small businesses. [Laughter.] It is interesting that Conservative Members find that amusing. Many small businesses appreciated that development and would like to see a Cabinet Minister with similar responsibility in the present Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): How does the hon. Gentleman define stability in the economy?

Mr. Bruce: Perhaps stability was the wrong word, but inflation, interest rates and unemployment all decreased and the economy moved in the right direction. If a Conservative Government had presided over that, they would have been pleased to boast about it. The Minister knows perfectly well that the ensuing winter of discontent arose against our advice, when an election should have been called and the matter resolved.
The hon. Member for Stirling picked on events that happened at a given time and blamed them entirely on the Government of the day. As he referred to the miners' strike I presume that he will not object to the Government accepting responsibility for that. Many working days were lost then. We have had riots at Wapping and in Birmingham, Liverpool and London. All that has happened under the Conservative Government, who therefore stand indicted for it. I am not as uncharitable as the hon. Gentleman in assuming that all those matters are the direct responsibility of the Government. but the Government certainly had a hand in creating that unrest and provocation. Indeed, when historians consider this period of government, they will not see it in the spirit of Nirvana in which the hon. Gentleman wishes us to dwell. The electorate is capable of making its own choice.
The Conservative Government's great concern with the details of the democratic process within trade unions has been of considerable benefit to some trade unions. Indeed, I have supported several of their measures. But they are selective and it is extraordinary how keen they are on the nitty-gritty detail of trade unions while they refuse to counternance any legal regulation of the City. Indeed, it seems that Mr. Gorbachev will be elected Secretary of the Communist party of Russia before the chairman of the Conservative party is elected. If Conservative Members are so concerned about democracy, it would help if they were consistent about it.
If the hon. Gentleman talks seriously, as I do to people involved in industrial relations, he will find that the type of sentiments he expressed are not greeted with great enthusiasm by employers, but are regarded with considerable anxiety.

Mr. Bill Walker: In an intervention and again now, the hon. Gentleman has commented on the way in which the Conservative party runs its affairs. I imagine that he has studied the matter in some depth because he seems to know about it. Does he realise that the majority of officers of the Conservative party in Scotland are elected, that the chairman and vice-chairman who are appointed are responsible for the management of central office and that all the elected officers run the associations throughout the country?

Mr. Bruce: I am not sure what that system is, but it is certainly not democracy. It seems extraordinary that the only jobs to which one cannot be elected are the top jobs which have the highest profile. The hon. Member for Stirling must address some serious points. If he believes that the climate and the tone of his speech are likely to improve the spirit of industrial relations in this country, he is very much mistaken. It has become fashionable under this Government to attack trade unions to such an extent that the positive, constructive and essential role that trade unions play has sometimes been obscured. Employers with large work forces simply would not be able to operate without the co-operation of trade unions. They are an essential means of communication and they have helped to improve working conditions and health and safety at work.
The alliance certainly accepts that in recent years there have been abuses of union power. We stress that they have been contributed to by weak and ineffective management. We have therefore proposed democratic reforms including the wider use of postal ballots and we believe that it is


important to ensure that trade unions become effective vehicles for change because change is taking place and must take place.
I fear that too often Tory legislation has been motivated by the kind of anti-union sentiment that we have heard from the hon. Member for Stirling, purporting to be concerned with improving the accountability of unions and giving them back to their members, while generally trying to undermine their ability to be effective. The worst example of that was the banning of trade union membership at GCHQ even in circumstances in which the union was prepared to co-operate and offer a no-strike agreement. That has upset many moderate people in trade unions who were disgusted that trade union members at GCHQ should have been treated in that way.
The other problem is that the shift of power away from employees to employers in the past eight years has given some unscrupulous employers—fortunately, only relatively few employers—an opportunity to take advantage of the new laws to undermine the use of the strike weapon, to break contracts unilaterally and to use the law to sack workers and deny them what might be regarded as reasonable rights.
The alliance takes a view that is not peculiar to the alliance Benches. That view is certainly widely held among employers' organisations and those involved in negotiation and arbitration outside the House. We believe that the Government should proceed cautiously at the moment. Many people feel that progress has been made. I accept that there has been an improvement. However, we now need time to allow things to settle down. Some equilibrium has been achieved, and many people are concerned that if the Government go too far down that road, that will create a backlash in the atmosphere within many organisations which could sour the progress that has been made. The Government must take that point very seriously.
I also believe that if further reforms are to be introduced, they should be put into a context of extending industrial democracy. I do not mean just democracy for trade unions, but for all people at work. Their rights should be developed at the same time as the responsibilities of trade unions are being spelt out.
I want to give an example of the balance of rights. If, as I think is right, the Government have set out legislation which states that before any strike is called there should always be a secret ballot, which should usually be a postal ballot, the results of that ballot should be binding on the members. That means a two-way street. If the ballot states that there should be no strike, there should be no strike and trade union leaders should not try to get around that decision. However, if the ballot states that there should be a strike, all members should normally be expected to support the strike. It is not reasonable for the Government to propose to set up legislation allowing people to break half the bargain but not the other half. Many trade unionists would regard an even-handed approach as a fair and reasonable balance and that is reasonable in terms of natural justice.
The alliance view is that, if we are to go further down that road, the involvement of employees in decision-making processes that affect them within their companies should be enhanced. We stress that employers' representatives—I have spoken to them—who call continuously for more and more detailed regulation of trade unions

cannot logically argue that there should be no statutory backing for measures that would strengthen employees' rights. It seems reasonable to us that employees' rights should go hand in hand with the responsibilities of trade unions.
The alliance believes that all organisations with more than 1,000 employees should be required by law to set up comprehensive employee participation agreements. We accept that the details could and should vary among organisations, but they must provide for genuine consultation at the top level and for the right of employees to be consulted on strategic decisions. Many of the problems of frustration and disillusionment, particularly those that have occurred recently, would have been averted if that type of consultation had been required. That practice is widely accepted in virtually every other industrial country with which Britain trades.
The trade unions must be tuned up to adapt to changing conditions. They should be helped to do so because conditions are changing fast. The closure of many industrial plants has changed for ever the character of many industrial unions. The hon. Member for Stirling may be surprised to hear that I think that he was on stronger ground on that point. Constructive support for trade unions to adapt to change is a legitimate role for Government.
Changing technology means that in future the old-style large industrial organisations will probably tend to be fewer, that many more of the work force are likely to be in smaller units and that flexibility will be required. We will need different and constantly changing skills. I suggest that the trade unions will therefore find that their traditional method of recruiting members will no longer serve them well. They will have to recognise the need to change.
Already some trade unions are changing their role, perhaps to some extent taking on the mantle of the old friendly societies and offering a wide range of services. But they should go further and start helping people who have lost an industrial job and are perhaps moving into self-employment, and into small business. The trade unions should not leave the creation of indigenous enterprise to other people. They should recognise that they have at least in an advisory capacity a useful role to play.
I shall draw on the example of west central Scotland which, perhaps almost more than anywhere else—although obviously parts of northern England are in a similar position—demonstrates the need for change. There is record unemployment and there have been devastating plant closures, with more feared and even identified. It is clear that a new industrial strategy is required. We need to ensure that Scotland gets a fuller share of new investment, new technology and new jobs. That must happen, and the trade unions should be actively involved in it. They must find ways of helping the people of west central Scotland to find new enterprise and develop new, home-grown enterprises. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stirling does not see that as a role in which trade unions should be involved. I am concerned that trade unions do not see it as a role that they should play. But that is the way in which they shall have to move if they are to play a constructive part in the industrial life of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom in the 21st century.
Far from pursuing another hard-line round of interfering in the detailed workings of the trade unions in isolation, the Government should first allow the present


situation to settle, at least for a little time. That is what the employers—never mind the trade unions—want. Many people are concerned that another round of union bashing by the Tories will create a sour atmosphere. Secondly, when further moves take place—we support some—they should do so hand in hand with measures to improve employee participation, consultation and involvement by right in the decision-making processes which affect them in the workplace. That balanced approach is fairer, more just and more honest than the one that we are likely to get from the Government.
The alliance has accepted that the Government's stepby- step approach has achieved some benefits. We believe, however, that there should be a settling down period, that the future goes hand in hand with the responsibilities and rights of employees, and that the type of sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Stirling will do nothing to reduce strikes, unrest or disputatious confrontation within industry. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman relishes it and always will. That is why 1 hope that he, too, is a dinosaur in Britain.

Mr. Robert Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has done the House a service by giving us the opportunity to debate trade unions and industrial relations matters on a broad basis and especially by focusing on the question of the attitudes and policies of the alliance parties. I propose to follow my hon. Friend's argument. However, I do not believe it is necessary to go back into the highways and byways of the politics of a decade ago to prove the case against the alliance. On that point, if not on any other, I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
Experience suggests that the attitude of the various parties towards the trade unions and industrial relations depends upon their wider economic policies. On this point there is a basic difference of approach between the Conservatives and the other parties. To be brief, the Conservative party believes in fiscal prudence, public spending restraint, and lower public borrowing. We believe that the road to growth and higher employment lies in a flexible and dynamic corporate sector energised by incentives, lower taxes and higher profits.
That is our philosophy, and although we seek the support of the widest possible range of people, we do not require the political co-operation of the trade unions to make our policies work. We have therefore been free to carry through the most extensive programme of trade union reform undertaken by any Government in our history. That reform has been ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. It is a reform which has been unwelcome to trade union leaders—but it has been welcomed by trade union members and by the country, and we have more to offer in the same vein.
In contrast, the Labour party and the alliance parties believe that the Government should seek a short cut to higher employment by expanding demand through a rapid increase in public spending and public borrowing. The Opposition parties have different ideas about the extent of demand inflation which they believe to be feasible. But for the purpose of my argument the important fact is that all those parties— in the sense that the SDP and the Liberals are distinct— agree that the expansion of demand that they envisage will carry a serious inflationary

risk. Each of the Opposition parties proposes to resort to the classic device of an incomes policy to dampen these inflationary pressures.
It is true that the Opposition parties are approaching the question of an incomes policy in different ways. The Labour party is intellectually aware that such a policy is a necessary complement to its economic strategy. However, because it has been unable to get the agreement of the trades unions to an incomes policy it prefers to draw a veil over the whole subject. Nevertheless, we all know that if the Labour party was to form a Government it would have to seek the understanding of the trade unions with regard to wage restraint. We also know that, in turn, that necessity would dictate the terms of the Labour Government's policy towards trade unions and towards industrial relations—for we have seen all this before, in what used to be called the social contract. The Labour party has promised that it would re-write industrial relations law. There can be no doubt that this would be a repeat of what happened in the 1970s, when policy was effectively dictated from Transport house.
The alliance parties also know that an incomes policy is a necessary element in their overall economic strategy. They have tried to make a virtue of recognising that fact. The difference between themselves and the Labour party is that they are too naive—I was interested that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) used that word to describe himself— too inexperienced in government, or perhaps, like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) too insouciant of detail, to appreciate that they would have to pay a heavy price for the co-operation of the trade unions in the operation of their incomes policy.
For with the alliance parties, as with the Labour party, their policy for trade unions and industrial relations—in spite of all the hopes and aspirations of the hon. Member for Gordon—would be bound to flow from their central commitment to an incomes policy. One important reason for this is that the incomes strategy which is envisaged by the alliance is unworkable, and its breakdown would drive it into the arms of the trade unions.
To make out my claim, I must examine the alliance's incomes policy, and that I propose to do. The alliance document entitled "The Time Has Come" proposes that its income policy should be based on two elements. The first element is what is described as
a payroll incentive through reduced employers' national insurance contributions.
The idea is to offer a premium from the Government to companies which settle below a norm for income growth.
But if the incentive were to be substantial enough to make any difference to the behaviour of employers, especially those faced with heavy pressures from the unions— I wonder whether alliance Members have thought this through—it would absorb a large part of that increase in public spending which the alliance parties believe to be feasible. For example, a cut of, say, 25 per cent. in the national insurance contributions of, for example, three quarters of employers—assuming that three quarters of employers are paying below the norm—would cost no less than £2·8 billion out of the total of £5 billion which the alliance believes is available in the way of increased public spending.
On the other hand, if the payroll incentive were not substantial, it would be unlikely to make very much difference to employers' behaviour. After all. National


insurance contributions amount to no more than 6 to 7 per cent. of wage costs. Inevitably, therefore, the alliance parties would be obliged, if they were in a position of power or influence, to call upon the second element of their incomes strategy, which is their proposed "counter-inflation tax".
Would that tax actually be counter-inflationary? let us consider it. If the tax rate were low enough to allow flexibility, many employers would not be deterred from settling above the norm. Such savings, if any, on the amount that they would have paid without the tax would be likely to be exceeded by the amount of the tax, so the effect would be inflationary. Moreover, all experience of incomes policy suggests that the norm tends to become the minimum. In other words, under a low inflation-tax rate, the effect would be to raise labour costs for the high-paying firms without reducing costs for the low payers. This would, again, fuel inflation rather than restrain it. In these circumstances the alliance parties would be forced to contemplate a high inflation-tax rate.
In theory there must be a tax rate which is high enough to ensure that the wage costs of prospective high-paying employers are lower, if they keep to the norm, than if they exceed it. But what then happens to the vaunted flexibility of the inflation tax? It is supposed to be a flexible way to arrive at an incomes policy. The Government of the alliance parties would, in fact, be left with an incomes policy which would be little different from the policies of their predecessors. It would operate, like all its predecessors, to stifle and distort the inevitable and necessary proceses of adjustment in the labour market. Like all previous incomes policies, the alliance policy would prevent firms from securing rapid productivity growth through high rewards to their employees.

Mr. Bruce: No. That is specifically excluded.

Mr. Jackson: It is not specifically excluded, because of the logic of the policy. The alliance would be driven to make the policy operate on the basis of a high tax rate with limited flexibility, since otherwise people would break through it. So the policy would prevent firms from achieving higher productivity by rewarding their employees above the norm. Firms would be prevented from offering the prospect of future rewards for present sacrifices and they would be penalised for seeking to upgrade the skills of their work forces or to attract more labour.

Mr. Bruce: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting contribution. However, our proposals allow specifically for productivity-related deals to be exempted from any tax. That ensures that such deals can be accommodated within an incomes policy.

Mr. Jackson: It is charming to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to productivity and profit-sharing exceptions. Indeed all these exceptions are listed in "The Time Has Come". Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we have heard all this every time there has been an incomes policy, and every time there is a trade-off between the flexibility and the effectiveness of the policy. The general economic strategy of the alliance requires an effective counter-inflationary policy. The more loopholes that are put into

the incomes policy, the less effective it will be. The consequence, as with all incomes policies, will be that the policy will not be counter-inflationary but the reverse.
Perhaps what is even worse than the consequences of the breakdown of the incomes policy that I have been predicting—I return to the broad theme of trade unions and industrial relations—is that the unworkability of the alliance party's incomes strategy would inevitably drive it to seek political deals with the trade unions in return for their co-operation in wage restraint.
I ask the hon. Member for Gordon, rhetorically, which of the industrial relations reforms of the past decade, for some of which his honourable colleagues voted, he would give up to get such co-operation from trade unions? To be even more speculative and to refer to a subject that is close to the hearts of members of the alliance, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, what sort of industrial democracy would they propose if they had to negotiate all its details with a trade union movement upon whose political co-operation their economic policy depended?
The fact is that this would turn out to be a nightmare for these innocents abroad—the babes in the wood of British politics—and for the country. Fortunately, of course, like all nightmares, it is only a dream. For just as after the next election there will be no Labour Government, so there will be no alliance Government or even an alliance influence in Government. I hope that my remarks this evening will show why that is an outcome to which we should all look forward.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) about trade unions and industrial relations. The hon. Gentleman does not understand what trade unions are all about. For one thing, when the House is full, as during Prime Minister's Question Time, and all Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers are present, about seven millionaires sit on the Government Front Bench. There are also millionaires on the Government Back Benches. What do Conservative Members know about trade unions?
Let us take the matter a stage further. Many Conservative Members have connections with financial institutions in the City. Many Conservative Members are members of the legal profession. What do they know about trade unions? I thought that the hon. Member for Stirling would refer to the closed shop of the legal profession, but he did not do so, and for a purpose. Government Benches are lined with people associated with the legal system. It is the biggest closed shop—never mind trade unions. Not all trade unions have closed shops.
The Paymaster General has a nerve to tell the Opposition and the nation what the Government will do about trade union legislation. He is a member of the biggest closed shop in the country. That is a shocking state of affairs. Trade union officials are elected to represent their members, and that is what they have always done. [Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing because they do not know what I am talking about. The elected officers of trade unions represent their members, and the members determine the policy of the unions by the decisions that they take at branch meetings and at annual conferences.
I have been a trade union member since the age of 14. I am 61 now. That is a long time. There are some young


lads on the Conservative Benches who have not lived yet. They do not know what life is all about. They certainly do not know what trade unions are all about.
I went down the pits as a very young man. The week before last I said that I went down the pits as a young lad, but this week I am saying that I went down the pits as a young man. I remember the conditions under which we had to work. It followed the period in the 1930s when a Conservative Government crushed the trade unions and the workers. Between 1979 and today there has been a repeat of that period in the 1930s. This Conservative Government are taking a real swipe at the trade union movement in an attempt to crush it.
When I worked down the pits, production was the first priority, earnings were the second priority, and safety was the third priority. The Secretary of State for Energy talks at that Dispatch Box about the number of people who have been killed down the pits. He pours out figures, compares them with nuclear power stations and says that with nuclear power there would he very few deaths. The reason for the large number of deaths all those years ago was that safety was the third priority. The bosses wanted the highest production that they could get. They did not bother about the expense of serious accidents in the mining industry.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Not many moments ago I said that there are far too many youngsters on the Conservative Benches, that they have not lived, that they do not know what life is about and that they certainly do not know what trade unions are about. I add that they do not know what work is about, either.

Mr. Dixon: My hon. Friend is right to point out that Conservative Members know nothing about trade unions or about workers. None of them has seen a pair of overalls, let alone worn a pair. Will my hon. Friend also point out to Conservative Members who keep lecturing the trade unions that when men and women go on strike they receive no pay, so they do not easily go on strike? It is usually their weapon of last resort. They have nothing to live on when they go on strike.

Mr. Haynes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. That was part of the exercise when this Government and previous Governments took action against trade unions.
The job of the trade unions is to look after their members and to ensure that they get a fair deal, but this Government have shackled trade unions and tied them up in chains. The right hon. Gentleman who usually sits below the Gangway, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was the Prime Minister of the 1970–74 Administration. I was a local government servant at that time. He chained me, too, with his Housing Finance Act 1972 and told us exactly what we had to do. That is what is happening now. The Government are telling people what they should do. They are taking away people's freedom.
This afternoon the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) asked the Prime Minister to give the people freedom. It is his party that is taking freedom and rights away from people. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will look carefully at the Green Paper and consider making changes to it, bearing in mind what is being said in this debate.

Mr. Dixon: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the proposals in the Green Paper is that, if trade union members take part in a ballot and vote against strike action, but the majority take strike action, the trade union can take no action against those who do not do so? If the Government want to be even-handed, they should also say that when a member takes part in a ballot and the majority are against strike action, anyone who wishes to take strike action should be protected from the employer. That would be even-handed of the Government.

Mr. Haynes: How right my hon. Friend is. Let us look at that situation now that my hon. Friend has raised it. The Government say that every trade union by its legislation, must have a ballot before a strike. What about when a ballot is in favour of a strike? Conservative Members start to squeal, yet the union members have acted in accordance with the trade union legislation that this wicked Government have enacted.
The hon. Member for Stirling said that in years gone by trade unions had secured far too large increases in earnings for their members. He forgot something, and it is still happening today. The bosses can have what they like. The chairman and directors can receive massive increases. There are no shackles on that, and I know why. It is because they contribute to Conservative party funds, and while the funds are coming in they will be left alone.
I have been asked to wind up. I wanted to be brief to allow my hon. Friends an opportunity to make a good contribution because of what is being said on the Conservative Benches. I wanted to say what we aim to do when we get back into office. We shall release the chains on the trade union movement, and at the same time we shall give freedom to its members so that they can enjoy what they are paying for.

Mr. John Evans: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield ( Mr. Haynes) on a typically robust speech, in which he echoed the thoughts, hopes and beliefs of millions of working men and women throughout the country. There is no doubt that those who read the report of the debate will read his speech and recognise that he spoke for them, unlike the Conservative Members who have spoken.
At the outset I declare that I am proud to be a sponsored member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and have been since 1 was 16 years old. I am proud of the fact that my union is the most democratic institution of any in the United Kingdom and I challenge any Conservative Member to deny that. I also make the point very strongly that the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers did not need any legislation or lectures from Tories about how it should have a democratic organisation; it built it itself. Men and women since the union started at the turn of the century have created that democratic organisation of which we are proud. We do not require and will not accept any lectures about freedom or democracy from the Tory party.
It is significant that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not declare any interests. He certainly did not declare any membership of a trade union. I suspect that that was because the hon. Gentleman is not a member of a trade union and never has been. By his speech tonight he showed that he knows nothing about the workings of trade unions, the history of trade unionism or the practice of trade unions.
I suggest to the House and the British people that that is hypocrisy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who boasts in the Register of Members' Interests that he is a public relations consultant to companies such as Pritchard's, which specialises in privatisation, the purpose of which is to ensure that some of the lowest paid workers in the land lose their trade union rights and jobs and get lower wages.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw that, because if he consults the Register of Interests he will find that the only declaration that I have to make is in respect of my shareholding in my company and the clients, which do not include Pritchard's.

Mr. Evans: If I am mistaken—[Interruption.]—and if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) says, the hon. Gentleman has been dismissed by the company, I shall withdraw what I said. However, I was quoting from a book that I read only a few moments ago and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has it put right by the authorities of the House.
Let me make it clear at the outset that a one-and-a-half-hour debate on the Consolidated Fund is not an acceptable basis on which to debate the Green Paper introduced to the House by the Paymaster General a few weeks ago. Labour Members expect a full and proper debate on the issues in the document before the Prime Minister plucks up the courage to tell the country that we are to have a general election.
It is essential that every Member of the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to address himself to the contents of that Green Paper which is an extension of the legislation which the Tories have introduced since 1979 and which was aimed solely at neutralising the trade union movement and disciplining the British work force. No one should lose sight of that fact.
A brief glance at the history of the legislation shows clearly what has happened over the past few years. It is often forgotten that the first step in the Government's legislation was the Social Security Act 1980 which withdrew £15 from the social security of families of people on strike, even if the striker himself received no pay or no strike pay from his trade union. That £15 has subsequently been increased.
Then the Employment Act 1980 attacked the closed shop. The closed shop ballots demanded by that Act created the farce whereby 80 per cent. of those affected by the closed shop had to vote in favour of it or 85 per cent. of those voting had to vote in favour before the closed shop could be put into effect.
If any of those figures were applied to general elections, I suspect that not one hon. Member would get here. I do not think that any of us can claim that 85 per cent. of our electorate have cast their votes. Yet that is the challenge put to the trade unions. It is significant that in almost all the cases where there have been ballots to maintain a closed shop, the vast majority of trade unions have voted in favour.
The Act also restricts the right to picket. It restricted the right of individuals in dispute to attempt to demonstrate their feelings about what had happened in their place of work. It restricted their right to participate in secondary action. We all saw the culmination of that in

the appalling dispute at Wapping, when News International erected a series of bogus companies to ensure that an arm's-length relationship developed between the workers' jobs in Fleet street and in Wapping. We had the ridiculous position where workers sacked from their employment could take no action against their employers.
The hon. Member for Stirling is smiling. He thinks that it is a huge joke that the law of the land should deny workers in that position the right to take any action to protest about what had happened to their jobs and their employment rights which were also denied.
The Employment Act 1982 contained further attacks on the closed shop. Trade unions lost their immunities and they can now be taken to court and fined huge sums of money because of the actions of their officials. Trade unions can be fined up to £250,000. That is the price that they have had to pay for Tory democracy.
We also had the abolition of trade-union-only contracts, which almost every decent local authority insisted upon to ensure that fair wages were paid to the work force employed on those contracts. Every hon. Member knows that. That is why they not only did that, but insisted upon privatisation.
Then we had the Trade Union Act 1984, which provided for the election of the voting members of the executive committee of a trade union. Part II insisted upon ballots before industrial action, and part III on ballots on a political fund. The Tory party does not like to be reminded that every union which balloted its members who were affiliated to the Labour party won huge victories in those ballots—anything from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. They were all conducted properly and in a way of which the trade union had a right to be proud. The icing on the cake was when five trade unions which previously had not had a political fund, because of their fears of what the Tory party was up to, balloted their members and succeeded in getting a political fund. We have also had the Wages Act 1986, and deregulation.
At the back of all this has been massive unemployment, created by the Tory Government as a deliberate economic weapon to tame the British work force. It is now agreed by even the most Right-wing critics that the real figure for unemployment in Great Britain is somewhere around 4·5 million. The Tories have manipulated the figures in a manner of which any decent political party would be ashamed. We do not count unemployment in this country now—we count the unemployment figures. That is the bogus attitude which the Tory party has adopted over the past eight years. The truth is that now no one in the country believes any of the monthly statistics issued by the Tory party in relation to what it claims is unemployment.
Now we have the new proposals in the Green Paper, chapter 2 of which is called "Rights of Trade Union Members". That must be one of the sickest jokes that even this Government have ever attempted to perpetrate on working people. Chapter 2 deals largely with part II of the 1984 Act—ballots prior to industrial action. Again, the situation is that the trade unions have won the overwhelming majority of ballots that have been held in industrial action situations. If they are not to forefeit immunity to actions in tort, they must hold those ballots. Strictly speaking, they do not have to hold those ballots, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. They could take industrial action without the ballot, but if they did so they


would be subject to the usual actions in the High Court which unfortunately so many unions have been involved in over the past three or four years.
The interesting thing about the Act is that the right to take legal action against the trade unions was given to the employer, the supplier and the customer, but not to the trade union member. When we raised this in the Standing Committee on that Bill we never got any satisfactory answer as to why all those other people were given the right to take action against the trade unions, but not the worker. Now it is proposed in the Green Paper that the worker should have the right to take action against his own trade union. Whether there is any demand for that is not explained, because there is no evidence that any employee has ever suggested that he should have that right.
I have one interesting question for the Minister. If the situation is created in which the employee can take action against his trade union, will the employer, the customer and the supplier still have that right? Will we be adding to the problems of the trade unions in this area?
This section also deals with the rather vexed question of the right of trade union members legally to cross picket lines and gives them the right to complain to an industrial tribunal. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, no matter how it is dressed up, this is a flagrant, blatant blacklegs' charter, because a situation will be created in which, no matter what has happened over any ballot on industrial action, if an individual has had an opportunity to vote on industrial action and if the decision has gone against him, he is to be protected by law in his determination to cross a picket line and the trade union will be prevented from taking any disciplinary action against him.
I put it to the Minister that all sorts of organisations, such as the British Medical Association, the professional legal associations, cricket clubs, darts clubs and sports clubs of all kinds have the right to take disciplinary action against members who break their rules. Trade unions alone are to be denied that right. Is it not the case that the purpose is to make trade unions irrelevant? They will be prevented by law from taking any disciplinary action against their members in what, after all, is the most fundamental issue in trade unionism—the right to take action to protect one's job or one's conditions of employment.
Chapter 3 deals with the safeguarding and control of union funds. I do not know why this is in the document, because the suggestion inherent in this section is that somehow there is reason to doubt the honesty of union officials and the way that unions control and run their organisations. Not one shadow of doubt has ever been expressed about the way the British trade union movement conducts its financial affairs. I know of no case where a trade union official at the higher levels in the movement has been convicted in a court of law of swindling his trade union. I cannot say that about the City of London or about some of the things that go on there.
In tonight's issue of The London Evening Standard, even the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis speaks about the very large sums of Mafia money that are now washing through the City of London. There is no question of any Mafia money ever washing through the trade union movement. In the way it conducts its financial affairs, the trade union movement is a paragon of virtue which the City of London could well learn to take as an example. The

City could take lessons from the trade union movement because members' money is held in sacred trust by trade union officials. Many shareholders and many people cannot say that about the City and some of the crooks who operate there.
Chapter 3 also deals with indemnity.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. There is no evidence whatever that the Conservative party is prepared to take any action against corruption in the City, which is a major problem. The Conservatives are attacking the trade union movement on issues about which they have no right to attack them, and there has certainly been no evidence that they are required to do so.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The trade union movement is to be shackled and restrictions and every sort of Government control is to be imposed. However, the City of London is to have self-regulation even though it is patently obvious to the most naive people in the country that self-regulation is a total failure and will continue to be so. It will remain a failure until such time in the not too distant future that a Labour Government will regulate the affairs of the City of London.
Time is short and the Minister has to reply to the debate. One rather significant piece is tucked in at the end of the Green paper. Paragraph 6.19 speaks about the Department running a campaign to inform people of their rights under various pieces of legislation. Will the Minister give me an assurance that in the context of paragraph 6.19 the Government will not mount a massive campaign using taxpayers' money to try to get a propaganda exercise across to the British people in the run up to a general election?
If the Government are concerned about the abuse of power, why have they not taken steps to protect workers from arbitrary conduct by employers? Why are they making things worse for employees by restricting such things as unfair dismissal rights? The Government have a lot to answer for. I assure the Minister and the Tories that we will make them suffer when the general election is called.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for initiating this debate. There are some Members for whom a loss of voice would be viewed by the House with some equanimity. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), but when he reads his speech in the morning he may wish that he had been suffering from laryngitis, because he delivered himself of a number of extraordinary propositions. He said that it was the Government who provoked Mr. Scargill into indulging in the coal strike, and that he was looking forward to Mr. Gorbachev being democratically elected as the leader of the Soviet Communist party.
The hon. Gentleman was also looking forward, if and when the alliance had any input into Government, to introducing a measure whereby, if there was a strike ballot, anybody who was in a minority against a strike would be forced to come out on strike. That is an extraordinary illberal proposition. John Stuart Mill must be turning in his grave.
There is still some unfinished business to be done with trade unions. I warmly welcome the recently published Green Paper. The closed shop remains a blot on the statute book which has to be removed if only to remove the embarrassment of members of the alliance in this House, many of whom failed to take the opportunity, when they had it, to prevent such a measure from being passed. When the Liberal party had an opportunity to influence the Labour Government to change their labour relations policy in the fundamentally liberal direction of giving people the right—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have so many sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Hamilton: When it had an opportunity to influence the Labour Government to change their labour relations policy in a fundamentally liberal direction by giving people the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union, the Liberal party failed to use the opportunity and the influence that it claimed to have to make that change. We look forward to having the support of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) if and when, as I hope we will, we introduce a measure to remove the last vestiges of the closed shop.
I regret to say that the policy of the alliance, in so far as it can be discerned or distinguished, is "Not tonight, Josephine", that this is never the time to make these worthwhile changes, and only in retrospect does it discover that it has some sympathy with them. I welcome the Minister and I hope that he can tell us that the Government intend to move in a fundamentally liberal direction and will restore to people the freedom which the Liberal party does not seem to want to give them.

Mr. Loyden: When will the Conservative party elect its chairman by ballot?

Mr. Hamilton: We have had to attenuate our remarks because of lengthy contributions by Opposition Members. I content myself with the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak very briefly. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that Conservative members were anti-union and were union bashers. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) suggested, as did the Opposition Front Bench, that Conservatives had no knowledge or experience of trade unions. The hon. Member for Ashfield ought to know that I, like him, at the age of 14 was a member of a trade union. I have been, as he was, a member of more than one union. I was on the national executive of a trade union. Indeed, I know as much about the workings of trade unions as he does.
Attitudes are important. Attitudes during the second world war, when the hon. Gentleman and I joined the trade unions, were very different, because the shop stewards then were mostly ex-first world war union members who suggested that it was important that we kept things moving, and strikes were out in the industry that I was in. This Government have taken a step-by-step approach which has been good for the trade unions and their members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Mr. Deputy Speaker. I—

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought it was a convention of the House that you took one speaker from the Government side and one from the Opposition side. I have been sitting here all night, as have other hon. Members. Had the Minister not wanted to use the debate because he did not want to put forward an argument, he should have given the opportunity to Back Benchers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary when Front Benchers rise for them to be called. I am following that custom.

Mr. Dixon: Why did the Minister not rise immediately after our Front Bench spokesman sat down, instead of letting two of his Back Benchers speak? I have as much right to speak as has the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not disputing my judgment. Mr. John Lee.

Mr. Lee: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on his good fortune in being able to raise this issue, as it is particularly relevant to the recent publication of the Government's Green Paper entitled "Trade Unions and their Members". I am particularly sympathetic about his loss of voice. Despite that, he made an effective speech. Our proposals are an important further step along a path which the Government chose in 1979 and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this chance to talk again about these proposals and the benefits that will follow from their implementation.
Before coming to the actual proposals in the Green Paper it might be worth reminding hon. Members of the position that we have reached so far. I agree with all that my hon. Friends have said about the problems and difficulties that this country faced in its industrial relations in the late 1970s. The Labour party was, after all, swept from power in revulsion against the wholesale spread of secondary action and secondary picketing that gripped the country in the winter of 1978, and unions' bully boy tactics and attempts to hold the public to ransom.
No one with any regard for the needs of our economy would want to see the situation that we then had. Trade unions were placed above the law, with virtual immunity from legal actions to recover the cost of damage they had caused. Trade union officials held immunity for the organisation of all sorts of excessive forms of industrial action— indiscriminate secondary action, political strikes, picketing at other people's places of work and secondary action to enforce the closed shop. Employees were being dismissed, without any compensation, simply because they refused to join a union. Union balloting practices denied members a proper voice in elections of officials, or were travesties of democracy, such as "votes" about strikes taken in mass meetings by a show of hands.
Whatever the Labour party may now be saying in public, I have little doubt that if it gets any sort of chance to act it will simply turn back the clock and we will have, once again, all the old evils and malpractice re-emerging.
Nor can the voter look with any confidence at all the alliance's ideas. The SDP leadership consists of the very same people who were prominent members of a


Government who presided over the winter of discontent and supported the laws which allowed it to happen. They really have learnt nothing from their experience, or—to be more charitable perhaps— have learnt the wrong lessons. How else are the public to regard a proposal to impose some sort of statutory process to establish trade union recognition rights— which can only result in repeated, and more frequent, "Grunwicks"— complete no doubt with Cabinet Ministers joining the picket lines?
When the alliance, or part of it, has not been fighting this Government's proposals tooth and nail, it has been looking round for weird and wonderful ideas—such as systems of "positive rights"— whose importation into British law would simply lead to confusion, misunderstanding and chaos, with consequent damage to our industry and commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in his elegant and devasting critique of alliance incomes policy, destroyed its credibility.
Our aim since coming to power in 1979 has been to redress the balance of power between employers and trade unions and to make unions more accountable to their members. There have been major reforms. Trade unions are liable for legal actions for injunctions or damages. Legal immunity has been removed from certain unacceptable forms of industrial action, such as indiscriminate secondary or sympathy action, and picketing away from a picket's own place of work. Secret ballots before strikes and some other forms of industrial action and for the election of voting members of union executives have been provided as have regular reviews of political fund ballots. Increased protection has been given against unfair dismissal for non-union members in a closed shop.
These changes have had significant effects. Strike ballots are becoming an everyday feature, with over 230 since 1984. Some major strikes, for example, in the Civil Service, the NUR, and the Post Office, have been averted because the law has been used to ensure that members were given the right to be properly consulted. Employers have shown themselves ready to used to ensure that members were given the right to be properly consulted. Employers have shown themselves ready to use the remedies available by taking legal action in over 100 cases. Some progress has been made in the protection of union members against their unions and the climate that we have created has meant that members are more willing to take advantage of the safeguards that the law provides. We have also made it possible for members to have a better say in the way that their unions are run. About 30 major unions have changed, or have said they will change, their election provisions to comply with our legislation.
There have also been independent initiatives which will improve industrial relations. The increasing incidence of new forms of agreement between employers and trade

unions are designed to reduce the likelihood of industrial action. There is greater emphasis on flexibility of working arrangements, and increasing emphasis has been placed on employee involvement.
These developments are creating a new climate. It can be no coincidence as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling said, that in 1986 the number of days lost due to strikes was the lowest for over 20 years. But more needs to be done. As I have said, the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members" represents an important further step in the programme that we began in 1979. It might be best if I confirm, if only for the avoidance of doubt, that the Green Paper and the proposals that it contains do not single out for special treatment any particular sector of the economy. The proposals are intended to cover unions and their members whether they be in the public or private sector.
The impact of legislation based on the proposals will not depend, therefore, on where unions operate, or their members work, but rather on the degree to which the union itself has modernised its procedures to ensure, for example, the regular, secure election of its leadership. Unions which treat their members and potential members fairly and in a democratic way will have nothing to fear from our poposals. Indeed the reverse will be true. However, the old style unions have, at best, dragged their feet over implementing the changes introduced by our earlier legislation and, at worst, have blatantly ignored them. It is unions such at those, the dinosaurs of the union movement, that need to think again. Labour Members have shown open antagonism to, and outright rejection of, the Government's proposals. That leads me and, I have no doubt, the public at large to conclude that what matters to the Labour party is the protection of union power rather than union democracy.
The proposals are based on experience since 1979 arid will work in practice. Consultation is, however, an important part of our process of law reform and 10 weeks have been allowed for people to obtain the Green Paper. to read it, to consult others as they think best, and then to send comments to the Government, which must be received by 5 May. Special efforts have been made to offer small firms, as well as the TUC and the CBI, the opportunity to comment on the Green Paper proposals.
No one can legislate for good industrial relations, but good laws can help set a climate and framework within which good industrial relations can develop and flourish. Our efforts to date, and the Green Paper proposals, are in no sense an attack on trade unions as such. Responsible trade unions, willing and able to take account of their members' wishes, can be strong—perhaps the strongest— trade unions. I believe that the more we give the ordinary trade union member a say in his or her union's policy-making and actions the more loudly will the voice of moderation and good sense be heard.

Orders of the Day — Beef Industry

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome this opportunity to initiate a debate on the sector of the farming industry that is, at this time, under the greatest pressure. I very much regret, however, that the Government have seen fit to depart from the longstanding practice of enabling the House to debate, in its own time, the proposals of the European Commission for the annual price settlements before they embark upon the negotiations. I have checked the records and, so far as I can discover, 1979 was the only time that a Government have not provided such an opportunity. On that occasion it was due to the fact that the then Labour Government were on their last legs. It may be that the present Administration are similarly on their last legs and I have no doubt that that is increasingly the wish of the farming community.
This debate focuses on the position of the beef sector because of the crisis that the Government's action and inaction has induced. I was moved to tell the House at Question Time last week that the Minister's reply on the subject of beef to my question and those of other hon. Members, Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members, was complacent. As a consequence, I said that I would seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Therefore, I am doubly glad that it has proved possible to have this debate so soon after the Minister's rather astonishing utterances.
The Minister has demonstrated a smug indifference to the predicament of the beef industry since he came back to report on the December package in the House on 17 December. In the statement about the deliberations, he said:
Taken with the other measures, the beef producer must accept that this is a much more satisfactory agreement than anyone would have thought possible."— [Official Report, 17 December 1986; Vol 107, c. 1218.]
He also said that he was sorry that people—I assume he meant farmers—took an excessively gloomy view when it was such an extremely good deal.
In the weeks that have elapsed, the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, and that of Scotland and all those who are associated with the industry have agreed that their initial judgment about the impact of the package on the industry was right and that something pretty close to a disaster stares the beef industry in the face.
Around the country and, to some extent, in this House, the Minister has tried to suggest that he did a good job for Britain in comparison with what was done for other member states. However, that must be set against the level of farming incomes in this country, compared with those in other European countries. The figures provided by the EEC Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations show that the purchasing power of the net income per farmer in this country between 1984 and 1986 was, on average, 40 per cent. below the average for the years 1973 to 1975. That is a bigger fall than has been experienced in all other European countries, where the average decline has been about 25 per cent.
Real farming incomes in this country during this Government's period of office, since 1978–79, have suffered a larger fall than those in any of the then 10 member states. That fall has been just over twice that experienced by nine member states, and two and half times

the average for the other eight. Those figures show that the Government have presided over a progressively worsening situation for farmers and one which is worse in this country than in any other member state.
The Minister should not brag about his success, or rather failure, in Brussels relative to what was achieved by other countries, especially about beef. He should not quote again the misleading figures that he has sought to give the country, which make comparisons with the settlement in the Federal Republic of Germany, where carcase weights are about 20 per cent. heavier and support levels are about 20 per cent. higher than in this country because of their positive monetary compensatory amounts. The position is broadly comparable to that which has been achieved in this country. The position in Ireland and in France was substantially better.
It is important to consider beef in the context of agriculture as a whole and in the context of the incomes of those who are peculiarly dependent on beef, and to consider the ways in which their incomes have changed during the past few years. Page 38 of the Government's annual review shows that the index of average net income per farm in the United Kingdom for lowland cattle and sheep, which is greatly influenced by the beef market, now stands at one quarter of its level in the Government's base year of 1982. The slightly more advantaged farmers who are less heavily dependent on beef and for whom sheep play a larger part— that is to say, those in the less favoured areas who make returns based on their cattle and sheep—have seen their incomes drop by a quarter since 1982.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend will be aware that I represent an area where beef is important. Is he aware that within the past month I have been advised of two substantial farmers who have pulled out of beef altogether because they are losing too much money and that they have said to me, "If we are in difficulties, small farmers who depend more heavily on beef are facing a catastrophe."? Does he agree that that is the reality that is creeping over the beef industry in Scotland?

Mr. Maclennan: Scotland is peculiarly hard hit, as beef output constitutes 25 per cent. of total agricultural output, which is a high proportion. Relatively speaking, the Scots are certainly suffering greatly, but the position is bad in Wales, the south-west, Yorkshire and all beef-producing areas. There is no part which does not face a stark decline in income where beef has been a traditional product.
The Minister's sponsorship is hard to understand, in view of the evident shortfall in incomes and the shortfall between the total return and the target price for beef, particularly since the December package became operative—in other words, in the first three months of this year. The shortfall between the total return and the target price has ranged from 11·43p per kg in the week ending 11 January to the most recent shortfall of 16·31p per kg. Over the whole marketing year, that amounts to an appalling shortfall on the target price. At present, it stands at about £73·7 million.
It is evident from the Government's figures that the position is acute. Even the most partisan Minister in the Government—the former chairman of the Conservative party— cannot shrug it off. Indeed, perhaps his partisanship is surpassed only by his successor in that


office. Even he cannot be indifferent. I hope that tonight the Minister will take the opportunity to tell the industry what he intends to do about it.
A few further facts are necessary to bring home the plight. Despite the 5·1 per cent. increase in support prices which took effect on 5 January, market prices today are lower than they were a year ago, at 93·5p per kg. That is the lowest average monthly price since 1981. The industry is most deeply alarmed about its prospects after 6 April when the December package becomes fully operational with reductions in intervention.
It is necessary to consider closely what the 16 December agreement brought about. The Government sought to congratulate themselves then and now on what they achieved. But in reality, the basic level of support from intervention which, admittedly, in this period has not been providing an effective bottom to the market will be further reduced by up to about 13 per cent. from 6 April.
It is difficult to calculate the full effect of that on the market. To some extent, that depends upon the triggering mechanisms of the Commission's management arrangements. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this point because I believe that a great deal depends upon the signs that he gives of how he expects to see the market managed and whether he is prepared to use any of the resources that he boasted on 17 December were available for export refunds and private storage aids. We heard a lot about that at the time and about the more than 400 million ecu that were to be made available to smooth out the market as and when additional culling of dairy cows came about. The Minister has some explaining to do. Is that money genuinely available? If so, when does he propose to have it spent to stop what appears to be a spiralling decline in the market?
Another effect of the December package was the quite extraordinary preference extended to Irish beef imports which, as a result of the arrangements for introducing a special beef premium at 12 per cent. and the retention of the right of the Irish exporters to enjoy our variable beef premium, has meant a considerable enhancement of their unfair discriminatory advantage in our markets.
Because of the additional cow culling that has come about as a result of the additional dairy quota cuts, in the months of January and February there have been about 27 per cent. more cows on the market when compared with last year's figures. Of itself that would be enough to explain the disruptions in the market which are already prevailing even in advance of what happens in April. The introduction of the new beef premium throughout the other member countries of the Community, but not in this country, will have a further adverse effect on our international trade. Whereas our producers have to pay the clawback on their exports, those who receive the premium in Europe are not similarly penalised.
The variable premium scheme was extended for two years—that was welcomed at the time—but it must be acknowledged that that has made precious little impact on the actual incomes and returns of producers. The stark reality is that the shortfall that I have described exists notwithstanding the continuation of the premium scheme. It must be clear now to the Minister that reliance on the variable premium alone, without suitable intervention arrangements, at this time cannot be sufficient to sustain a healthy beef sector.
In December the Minister boasted of the 6 per cent. green pound devaluation. His self-esteem was not entirely

merited. That devaluation was introduced to rectify the distortions that had flowed from the much earlier devaluation of the green punt by the Irish that should have been rectified by the Government earlier. Despite the recent depreciation of the pound, the green pound gap for beef is still running at more than 17 per cent.
The combined effect of all those measures agreed with such acclaim by the Minister in December is the prospect of a reduction of £50 to £60 per head in the value of beef cattle following the April implementation of the intervention arrangements. That means a loss for virtually everyone engaged in that business.
It was a thoroughly bad package. It took some measures to protect the dairy industry, but at the expense of the beef industry. The Minister must rectify that soon. He is going to Brussels next week, and the opportunity to obtain a more satisfactory agreement is available to him. There are measures which he can take at his own hand, and there are matters that he must clear up tonight. There are ambiguities about the Government's intentions. Above all, he must show that the Government appreciate the industry's condition. So far, he has shown no sign of that.
What necessary steps must be taken? First, there is the possibility of paying the suckler cow premium at the increased upper permissible limit. I believe that that money can and should be paid without delay. All headage payments need to be raised to the full extent of the present limits, but, when the Minister goes to Brussels next week, he must seek a further increase in those limits. Secondly, the Minister must immediately take special measures to remove from the market the culled cows which are causing the distortion to which 1 referred. The time has come to find the 400 million ecu for private storage and assistance to the export market.
The overriding priority, as perceived by not only the producers but the representatives and spokesmen of the meat trade, is a major devaluation of the green pound. This would have a threefold beneficial effect. First, it would increase the support prices. Secondly, it would reduce the negative MCAs which are making exporting of our products so difficult at this time. Thirdly, it would increase the ceilings on headage payments on beef cows.
The Government have been oblique about their attitude to the green pound. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary, in an extremely interesting aside in a speech he made on 12 March in Exeter, said that it was the Minister's intention to seek a green pound devaluation of three or four time the 4 per cent. proposed by the Commission. If the Minister succeeds in obtaining three to four times that proposed, he will have staved off the worst of the crisis. But there has been no confirmation of that intention from the Minister, and the Minister of State has tried to make a virtue of secrecy about the Government's intentions. I put it to the Minister that, if confidence is to be restored in the industry, the industry must know that the government intend to seek a substantial devaluation of the green pound. This is just as much a matter of managing the market as any of the matters to which I have referred.
It would be unforgiveable if the Government simply refused to show their support for the industry through this proposed devaluation, lest they fail to achieve the full amount that perhaps they and we would consider necessary. If the Minister achieves the devaluation which I have suggested is appropriate and which his junior Minister has said is the target, he will get nothing but plaudits from both sides of the House. We all recognise


what a serious predicament this is. It is not one on which cheap partisan points ought to be made. The rural economy is at stake. The Minister has deprived himself, by the refusal to hold a debate on this matter, of the normal opportunity which Members of Paliament have had to offer their views about what is needed. Unlike the past, the Minister cannot go to Brussels with the support of a united House of Commons, because he has deprived himself of that opportunity.
In addition to the substantial devaluation of the green pound, further action is needed in respect of intervention coverage to halt the downward trend in market prices. Representatives of the trade and producers have suggested that the R4H category should be included in the group to which intervention applies. We look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that proposal.
We also advocate the recalculation of the basis on which beef MCAs are determined in line with reduced support levels that will flow from the December decision. The Minister could give the commitment to action necessary to remove from the market the additional cows from the dairy herd. It is time that the Minister faced the inequity in the arrangements on clawback and recognised that it is unfair and unreasonable to extract this clawback from our exporters while the Irish have the advantage of obtaining the variable premium. An abatement of that clawback to make it at least equal to the new beef premium is another step that the Minister should take in agreement with his colleagues in Brussels.
The Scottish National Farmers Union has made an urgent call—I believe no less dramatic than the vote of censure against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the annual general meeting of the union—to avert the collapse of hundreds of businesses in the rural economy. It is alarmed by the evident collapse of the real returns of specialist beef producers. Last year in Scotland, those returns fell by a further 10 per cent.
We are facing a crisis, and the Minister will enjoy the support of the House if he stands up for the interests of our producers and our industry. We eagerly look forward tonight for some evidence that that is the Minister's intention.

Sir Hector Monro: 1 am glad to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because, for once, we find ourselves on the same wavelength. We both represent constituencies with substantial hill cow numbers in less favoured areas. We face much the same problems. I shall pick up some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and certainly the main burden of my remarks will be towards the same end—to help the beef producers in this country to obtain better prospects for the future than look likely at present.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland finished his speech by talking about the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I wish to begin my remarks by saying that I have been greatly impressed by the work of the president of the Scottish NFU, Mr. Ian Grant. I appreciate the difficulties south of the border, but he has given a constructive lead to the farmers in Scotland. He has pointed out the important issues that the Government should consider and has given the Government support

when they have responded. He has commented on past developments and has expressed his expectations for the future.
We all accept that 1985 was a devastating year for Scottish farmers because of the miserable weather. Scottish farmers are still paying a heavy price for that year, despite the bad weather payments that the Government were able to introduce. However, those payments represented emergency support rather than the offer of long-term stability, which is so important. It is not surprising that incomes dropped by about 70 per cent. Fortunately, incomes rose substantially last year, but farmers' incomes are still far below those for 1983 and 1984.
The debate is about beef, but I think that it should cover livestock rearing generally. For example, the sheepmeat regime is as important to those who engage in sheep farming in Scotland, England and Wales as beef prices are to those who farm in beef. I suspect that most beef farmers have ewes, and they appreciate what the Government have done through the sheep premium and sheepmeat regime. They are probably engaged in the most profitable sector of livestock at present. Farmers in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) for example, appreciate and welcome what the Government were able to offer in compensation following the Chernobyl disaster. I understand, of course, the seriousness of the position in Wales.
The Government are right to fight support for beef against the background of price fixing in Europe. There has been a marked improvement in the hill livestock compensatory amount and in the suckler cow subsidy, which have been most important support grants for the industry. It is right, however, that the Government should consider moving to the maximum grant for the suckler cow and do all that they can to help with the compensatory amount. That will do something to retain that fast-disappearing beast, the suckler cow, which is bread and butter to Scottish beef producers. If the end price is not right, the suckler cow, including the multiple sucklers, will go.
When talking about end price, I hope that the Government will carry out an effective review of the Meat and Livestock Commission to ascertain whether it is carrying out its grading work adequately and whether its marketing operations are as successful as they should be. There must be a much more enlightened approach by the MLC to helping the beef industry throughout the United Kingdom.
All these issues relate directly to the green pound, and it is imperative for beef producers, rearers and finishers that it is devalued by about 16 per cent. That moment cannot come too soon. I have written personally to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to highlight the need for this to happen and to ask her to join the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in taking that course. I realise that it will cost money, but beef production is a long-term industry. If we kill off cows, it will take years to build up the beef herd, particularly if it is to match the quality of the present herd.
There is no other issue in farming that is so clear-cut. If the green pound is not devalued, beef will go bust, as it were. I have been impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, (Mr. MacKay), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has been doing for Scottish


farmers and by the way in which he spoke to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union this month. I give my full support to him and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in their determination to try to obtain the maximum devaluation of the green pound that they can. I appreciate that they have their troubles, but I wish them every success in rifling what they can from the Treasury.
I hope that both my hon. Friend and right hon. Friend understand that farmers are infuriated over the unfairness that results from the system in Eire. It is incomprehensible to farmers. After all, we can only go some way towards explaining why farmers in Eire, and indeed in Northern Ireland, can land their beasts on the mainland of this country and obtain a better income from the operation. It is intervention gone mad. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend will explain how the Irish can get away with it. It is important to find a way to stop it.
I cannot accept that the United Kingdom should suffer on account of Ireland's practices. We cannot go on looking into the future for ever, as though decisions may he made next month or next year in the European Community. We must determine just where we stand at present and where we should head in the next couple of years, so that we have confidence to go ahead with beef production. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues are doing their best to get constructive decisions made in Europe. I appreciate the difficulty of having to get some unanimity among the 10 nations, hut, during a period of price fixing, we must come up with some firm decisions, not only on the green pound, but on other matters that presently affect farming.
I read with great interest the speech made by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in Inverness on 12 March. He set out the union's farming manifesto. It is interesting to compare it with what we have achieved and are achieving. The first point was:
Removal of the green pound distortion to permit fair competition amongst EEC farmers.
That is what I and other hon. Members ask for, and that is what Ministers are trying to achieve during the present discussions.
The second point was:
Defence of our beef industry to enable the continuance of Scottish quality beef production, beyond the problems of the next two years.
That is what other hon. Members and I ask for. We want long-term decisions to be made in the industry.
The third point was:
Adequate funds to permit the uptake of woodlands as an alternative form of land use, and to finance other practical ideas of diversification.

That highlights the new policy that my right hon. Friend announced earlier this month about alternative land use. Again, it relates to forestry, particularly broadleaf forestry, and other ideas relative to a slightly more flexible approach to planning and developing the rural economy. Again, the president of the NFU and I are at one on this issue.
The fourth point was:
Commitment to an attractive voluntary set-aside proposal for cereals.
That matter has a high priority for the Government at present. Perhaps we shall decide on a sum of, say, £75 an acre, as opposed to planting ground with cereals. That is an interesting possibility.
The fifth point was:
Immediate research into alternative uses for crops.
Of course, that is being done.
The sixth point was:
Encouragement for alternative crops.
Again, that is a high priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The seventh point was:
Reduction in interest rates to reduce the debt burden.
That is one of the many successes of the Budget, including the two 0·5 per cent. changes in interest rates, and perhaps something more in view of the Chancellor's prudent economic policies. A 1 per cent. increase in interest rates probably means more to the average farmer than, perhaps, additonal allowances for Buckler cows or hill cows. Unfortunately, many farmers have high overdrafts to finance, and interest rates are of prime importance.
The manifesto went on to state:
Extension of the ADP principle.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are keen to do just that. With the farming manifesto very much in mind, we should try to resolve the important green pound issue. By doing so, we shall move an important step towards uniting the agriculture industry.
The new policies on alternative land use, forestry, workshops, flexible planning and particularly conservation that have been announced this month are very important. During the last five years there has been a remarkable transformation. Farmers now think in terms of conservation. Environmentally sensitive areas and management agreements are now accepted by the thoughtful farmer. He knows that they will help him to maintain his income. I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that the key issue is the devaluation of the green pound by 16 per cent. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can achieve such a devaluation, it will be of great value to agriculture, and particularly to beef producers, in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the fact that this debate is being held this evening. There is an immense crisis in the United Kingdom beef industry. I sincerely hope that in his reply the Minister of State will take seriously what has been said. The livelihood of many farmers, particularly in the upland and fattening areas, is being affected.
A number of things are radically wrong with the beef industry. The lack of profitability, above all in the hill beef enterprise, is causing major problems. That is not particularly new, but during the last 12 months it has reached crisis proportions. During the last 10 years the beef suckler herd in England and Wales has declined by 25 per cent.—from 1·7 million to 1·3 million cows. The local NFU branch in my constituency estimates that in the last nine months the proportion of suckler cows has declined by 5 per cent. The number of suckled calves sold in my constituency has also declined. The annual total of 7,000 animals marketed in the autumn sales dropped by 1,500 this year. That is a significant decline. We are mortgaging our beef industry for short-term objectives. We have to overcome that problem.
The green pound problem has already been mentioned. As for the upland areas, we have not been promised an increase in the hill land compensatory allowance for beef suckler cows in the coming year. This is very serious. Recent reports on the profitability of the finishing of cattle make depressing reading. The Meat and Livestock Commission calculated recently that the profitability of the 18-month beef finishing system is now so poor that it is advising farmers not to indulge in it, even though it was previously one of the most profitable beef systems in the country. Its profitability has now reached a 10-year low.
The position on the continent is very different. Prices for beef cattle are approximately one third higher per head than they are in this country. This is due mainly to the distortion that is created by the green pound. It proves that for beef it is not a Common Market. Working on prices at the beginning of February, a 450 kg beast in this country would fetch £450, including the variable premium. A similar size of animal in France, at continental prices, would make £622, and in West Germany £633.
I heard the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the annual general meeting of the NFU, say that as a result of the December agreement British producers would fare better than their continental neighbours in that they would experience less of a reduction as a result of the reduction in intervention prices that come into operation in April. Continental producers— particularly France and West Germany, which are two of the major producers— have a more profitable system of beef production anyway, so they can sustain slightly increased reductions in the intervention price of their product.
I do not regard the December agreement as a great success. It was a victory for the Treasury, but it was not a victory for British beef producers. The 13 per cent. reduction in intervention price will reduce the price by at least £50 per head, and that, unfortunately, has already been anticipated by buyers Of store cattle, who have already discounted that £50 before the reduction in intervention price comes into being. The result is that upland producers who are selling store cattle have suffered in anticipation of that happening.
The green pound reduction of 6 per cent. in December was totally inadequate in relation particularly to what happened to the imports of Irish beef before December, and we have already heard that there is still a 17 per cent. figure line with regard to monetary compensatory amounts. This discriminates against United Kingdom beef producers and it is producing unfair competition.
Tied in with that in the December agreement is the disposal of dairy cull cows as a result particularly of the 8·5 per cent. quota cutback commencing in April. Estimates have been made that 600,000 tonnes of beef will come on to the European market in the next two years. The EEC Commission disputes that figure. I should like to hear from the Minister what his estimate is of surplus beef coming on to the market. Is it 600,000 tonnes, as was forecast in December, or is it 250,000 tonnes of additional beef from the dairy sector, about which the EEC Commission is now talking? As I understand it from figures calculated in this country, there may be an additional 75,000 tonnes of dairy cull beef coming on to the market.
That surplus will depress the price of quality beef and is already forcing people to sell up their beef enterprises. The net result of this is that in two years' time—after this surplus dairy cull beef has gone through the system quality beef producers will have been forced out of production—we will then not have enough beef in this country to supply our own market, and that could put a strain on our balance of payments.
The Minister should take that point extremely seriously. We must, looking at our objectives in the beef industry over the next two years, hold the line. First, our upland beef herd must not decline any further while this surplus dairy beef is on the market. We must hold on now while this temporary surplus is occurring. Secondly, we must hold our beef prices at levels at which farmers can at least make a profit—which certainly is not the case at the moment—or we are likely to see a shortage in two years' time.
In the long-term we must maintain our suckler cow population, particularly in the hills, as that is an enterprise that complements the sheep industry, which is friendly to the environment and utilises some of the resources of the upland areas. The problem is that there is so much capital invested in beef cows, and with the high interest rates that have been obtaining in recent years it is extremely difficult to get a worthwhile return on the capital investment in a beef enterprise.
The solutions to the problems that we have at the present time are as follows. First, we must increase the beef cow premium by a further £6 per cow, which is allowed under the European Community rules as a result of the agreement negotiated in December. If the Government do not do that, they can rightly be accused of dragging their feet and it can be said that the Treasury, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is controlling policy. Secondly. we must see an increase in hill land compensatory allowances to keep hill cows in the less favoured areas for the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member her for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, this should be increased to the maximum possible amount.
Thirdly, at the earliest possible opportunity we must join the European monetary system, because this will undoubtedly benefit interest rates. It has been calculated that if we were to join the European monetary system there


would be a 2 per cent. reduction in interest rates and that this would save the farming industry £240 million. That is a significant sum. Fourthly, as soon as possible we must devalue the green pound by the outstanding 17 per cent., about which there has already been comment. A failure to devalue will penalise British beef producers and place them at a further disadvantage in relation to continental producers.
The ability of the Government to see through a major devaluation of the green pound is a test of their sincerity to British livestock producers, and especially to beef producers. If they do not do that, they could stand accused of keeping down the retail price index prior to a general election and of holding farmers to ransom. I am sure that that is not the case, but I should like the Minister's assurance on it.
Finally, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a statement this week in Agra Europe which challenges the amount of cash promised for the industry in the December agreement. I shall quote shortly from Agra Europe. It says:
Concern is growing in the UK that elements supposed to have been included in the December beef and dairy package arc now not going to the implemented. England and Wales National Farmers Union President Simon Gourlay drew attention in particular at this month's NFU Council meeting to the 435 million ECU said by UK Minister of Agriculture Michael Jopling to have been earmarked for the disposal of the beef that would result from additional dairy cow cullings. Gourlay said that this sum was not and never had been set aside, and he quoted Agriculture Commissioner Frans Andriessen as saying that the sum had been talked about but that there was no provision for it in the 1987 budget".
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the sum of 435 million ecu is in the budget. Is the England and Wales president of the NFU accurate in saying that that money has not been provided for at all in the 1987 budget? If the Minister does not act rapidly in the price negotiations next week, much of the beef industry will collapse. The industry is being pushed back on its heels. Some abattoirs have recently been forced to close and we must keep our meat industry alive. I plead with the Minister to act, in view of the state of the British beef industry.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have a constituency interest in the beef industry. All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have expressed a strong feeling for, and genuine concern about, the future of this important industry. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) quoted from the speech by Ian Grant, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland at its annual general meeting in Inverness on 12 March. The-hon. Gentleman omitted to quote the interesting passage in which Mr. Grant described the Government's present position as
A botched up incoherent and chaotic set of policy decisions on the Commission's December package proposals.
There are strong feelings in many unlikely areas. The Government ought to respond to the clear and legitimate concern felt by many about the future of this important industry. I welcome the opportunity to consider the serious problems that face the beef industry. I urge the Minister to take steps to protect this important and strategic industry now in its time of need. Many marginal

agricultural areas in the north and west and in the uplands are heavily dependent upon the beef sector. Beef accounts for 25 per cent. of Scottish agricultural output. In many cases that beef is produced on land that is suited only to grazing enterprises, in areas that are most vulnerable to economic change.
The Government have a duty to protect that sector of industry in such areas. Long-term policies have to be deployed in an industry of this nature, where it takes years to build up a breeding herd. While it is easy for farmers in an immediate financial crisis to cull some of their breeding cows, it can take a very long time for the industry to replace that capacity. The beef herd has declined every year since the Government came to power. Since 1985 the specialist beef herd in Scotland has declined by one fifth, and production fell by a further 10 per cent. last year, and no wonder, because the real returns for beef production are now, on average, £14 a head less than they were in 1985.
The background to this issue is not very encouraging. The December package—of which the Minister of State has been so proud in his recent statements — could actually cut the basic level of market support by up to 13 per cent. from 6 April. That is disturbing, because many of our beef farmers are already heavily in debt and there is no sign of an immediate let up for them.
I acknowledge that the Minister has succeeded in retaining the beef variable premium. Sadly, farmers in other parts of Europe are about to get a new rearing premium that will further distort the competitive position of our producers. The position of the British beef sector will be further eroded unless urgent action is taken. Indeed, the National Farmers Union of Scotland has expressed the fear that £50 or even £60 a head could come off the value of beef cattle in the coming months. That is a disturbing set of circumstances.
The preferential position of Irish producers in our market is likely to be enhanced by certain aspects of the Minister's December package. We know that there has been a flood of Irish imports for some months, in addition to the beef that is coming on to the market as a result of dairy cows being taken out of production and culled as a result of cuts and milk quotas. These circumstances are playing havoc with British beef producers.
The Minister said that he was excited about having obtained this package agreement in December, but, sadly, he failed to tie up some very important loose ends that should have been included. On 17 December he said:
The package helps very considerably. First, there is more than 400 million ecu put aside to get further exports of beef as the cows come on to the market. That will reduce the number of cows in the market."—[Official Report, 17 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1217.]
This point was raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who quoted the interesting comments from Agra Europe, which were published last week, suggesting that that 435 million ecu, which the Minister held up as being available to soften the blow and to protect the beef industry from the knock-on effect of all those dairy cows being culled, may have been a figment of his imagination. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor quoted what the president of the National Farmers Union, Simon Gourlay, had to say about that one.
Agra Europe went on to say:
Other items of cash for additional export support that were promised in the package also seem to be in doubt … misinformation … followed publication of the December


package pointing out that it was deceitful to say that the 435 ecu was there when it wasn't … What is becoming clear is that the negotiations of the December package were so complex and so lengthy that there is a marked lack of clarity over what was actually agreed and what were merely items for discussion.
The Minister would do us and the beef industry a favour if he would take the opportunity of this debate to say whether those funds are available to deal with this difficult position. He has a bit of explaining to do.
At the moment, the Minister has on his hands a genuine crisis in the beef sector. This crisis in the market for beef could spell ruin for some producers. The Minister was rash enough to promise specific action to alleviate that situation, and he seems to have been found wanting on this occasion. I hope that when he winds up this debate he will resolve the doubt that has been raised on many people's minds.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the Government have a duty to protect the competitive position of this extremely important sector of British agriculture. The Government should deploy all the mechanisms that they have at their disposal to support the industry in these circumstances. The Minister should use national aids or other measures that may be permitted under European Community agreements, including the suckler cow premium, headage payments, hill livestock compensatory allowances and any other mechanisms that are available to deal with this crisis.
The green pound has already been referred to. I recognise that the present problem may have more to do with the vagaries of the Irish green punt than with the valuation of the United Kingdom green pound, but British agriculture and rural Britain are entitled to expect the Government to take all appropriate action to protect them from any unfair discrimination. That appears now to require a further significant devaluation of the green pound.
On the long-term prospects for the beef industry, I am convinced that the beef and sheep sectors deserve a secure future. Lean beef and lean lamb are healthy foods, produced by an extensive farming system that has an excellent record on animal welfare. If the quality of the product and the price to the consumer are right, there could be scope for a significant increase in the consumption of these products in the future, and that in turn could lead to an increase in the area of grazing land on farms in Britain, to the promotion of a return to mixed farming and to a reduction of cereal surpluses. We must not get carried away. We already have significant, substantial and costly surpluses in intervention stocks.
We wish the Meat and Livestock Commission well in its efforts to improve the presentation and marketing of red meat, and the industry must co-operate in producing quality cattle for those purposes. The MLC should get all possible assistance from the Government in promoting the market for beef. Above all, to achieve that objective, we must get the price of beef right. The beef variable premium is part of the answer, but not the whole one. Our objective in Government, as the Minister well knows because I think that he has had an opportunity to study the Labour party's Green Paper on the future of the agriculture industry, will be to seek to repatriate national aspects of the common agricultural policy, and that must include measures to help our own people enjoy more red meat, which would be

good for consumers and for the beef industry. We must press the Government to keep their promises to help the beef sector through the current crisis. That is vital if we are to retain an adequate scale of breeding herd in order to provide for, one hopes, expanding markets for beef in the future.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I, like other hon. Members, wish to welcome the debate and the opportunity to discuss this most important sector. I hope that those who have spoken will allow me to say that, like them, I believe that the beef producer, especially the specialist beef producer, is a most important person within the agricultural community. The product that he produces plays a vital part in the economy of some parts of the country which would not find it possible to find alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly pointed to the serious situation which would arise in those areas if beef production ceased to be profitable. I accept that. Beef is a product of regions that do not have a wide range of alternative possibilities.
I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will acquit me of complacency. I do not believe that I have ever been complacent about the problems of the beef industry. I think that he must follow the argument through from point to point and decide then whether his strictures were justified. The first thing I say to him is that I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that we have a sensible policy to encourage the production of beef, particularly the specialist herd. I want to try to prove to him that that has been the policy of the Government and then to suggest some of the things that we have to do. Perhaps then, if he will let me, I could suggest why I feel that his particular strictures have been far from correct.
I shall first deal with the discussions in Brussels in December. It is not proper to discuss the problems of the beef industry without admitting and mentioning the enormous difficulty that the present system, or at least the pre-December system, placed upon the European Community. The hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the European Community and our membership of it and I know that he would not wish to miss that point. The fact is that the Community beef regime last year was well over budget at some 3·5 billion ecu or £2·25 billion. It has become increasingly expensive to try to deal with the CAP's beef intervention policy. For example, the 200,000 tonnes of Community intervention beef sold to Brazil last year cost FEOGA about £500 million. That is not a sensible policy.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that it does not give us any confidence in his strictures if he comes to the House and discusses this issue, which he has so rightly raised, without giving us any indication of how he would approach the basic problem of beef within the CAP. There was no word about how he or the alliance would deal with that. I do not think that it is possible to be taken seriously if one does not address the problems seriously. His speech was in stark contrast to the shorter but appropriate speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I do not agree with the policy that he put forward about repatriation, but at least he attempted to consider the basic problem of the


beef industry in Europe. However, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland again failed to tell us what he would do about the problem.
In the decisions taken in December, we sought to reach an agreement that would enable us to begin to produce a beef policy for the Community which would not mean that vast sums of money were spent without adequately supporting the British farmer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries so clearly said, the real problem is that we spend all that money but his constituents, and others like them, have not seen the support that they should for the enterprises that are so important to those parts of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland did not address that problem. I must advise him that he will not command respect for his policy if he will not address the real problems. It was to tackle that problem that we had the debate and discussions about the beef industry. In trying to solve the problem of over-production in the dairy industry, we were aware that cull cows would come on to the market. We had to face that problem also.
The result of that deal in December was much better for the British beef industry than it was for other countries. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that. I was interested to check to see what he said about it. In the Scottish Grand Committee on 19 January 1987, he said:
there is not much doubt that other beef producers in the rest of the Community"—
he excluded Ireland—
are better placed than we are as a result of these negotiations."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 19 January 1987; c. 88.]
That is precisely untrue. The fact is that British beef producers are less hard hit than those of other member states.
I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures before and I shall give them to him again. I shall then take up the point that he made. Whereas we expect the market support levels to fall by about £36 per head in the United Kingdom, the support level for French bulls will fall by £80 and by £40 for French steers. In Italy and Germany, the drop will be between £115 and £120 a beast. The hon. Gentleman said that their beasts are bigger than ours and that therefore the drop does not count. In that case, let us use the percentage basis. The percentage fall in the United Kingdom is 6·2 per cent. and in Germany it is 12·3 per cent.
Therefore, I stick to my point, that in difficult circumstances, when the Community was spending money that it could ill afford and when it was well over budget, the money was not reaching the people whom it was supposed to help. In that situation, the deal that was done for Britain was considerably better than those which were made for other countries. The hon. Gentleman must accept that those are the facts.
I agree that that does not help the beef producer who looks at his own budget and sees how difficult times are. However, the hon. Gentleman must not say that we did not achieve a better deal than other countries. That could be proved by asking any of the other European Ministers which country they thought did best out of the deal. I believe that they would unanimously say that it was the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman said that somehow or other that deal was bad for Britain. However, he did not mention the retention of the beef variable premium scheme—

[Interruption.] If he did so, he mentioned it in a curmudgeonly way. He did not say, "My goodness, we are pleased about this." However, the hon. Member for East Lothian generously and helpfully said that it was a good thing that we retained the BVPS.
I remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that, in the debate on the rural economy, he said:
Those variable premiums are essential to buttress our beef and sheepmeat production. I hope that, in their negotiations with the European Community, the Government will stand firm on variable beef premiums which are under threat at present.—[Official Report, 29 January; Vol 90, c. 1029.]
Indeed they were under threat. We stood firm and have maintained the BVPS for two years to come, which is a longer period than has been achieved previously. But the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, afraid that the Government might gain any support, said, "It is bad because of the Irish advantage on the clawback arrangements." I am happy to agree with him that in some ways the present relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is unsatisfactory, but he cannot complain about the Government on this issue. The position on clawback predates our membership of the EC and was maintained in the negotiations which established the BVPS by the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is now in the other place. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot blame this Government for what has always been an integral part of the BVPS, even under the Government whom he supported, although he is right that the present position is unsatisfactory.
The hon. Gentleman is particularly difficult to deal with, because he argues that there shall be no party politics but a moderate, reasonable approach and then makes a speech which, until the last three paragraphs, was entirely about party politics and how the Government had not done this, that and the other. In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries put the case for beef producers extremely well and pointed to their problems. He mentioned the need for and importance of the suckler cow premium. I thank him for his support for that other important element of this excellent deal. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland did not even give us the credit for increasing, with great difficulty and against the wishes of most of our colleagues in the Council of Ministers, the amount of suckler cow premium that could be paid. He is determined to play party politics with anything that comes before the House.
My hon. Friend was right to say that we now have that headroom. It will be part of the package that we must consider for the beef industry during the price-fixing negotiations. It is not for me to say when debates take place, but I meet the hon. Gentleman in his demand that we should discuss these matters, and I hope we shall do so before long. There is a great deal of negotiation to do yet; we are only beginning on the small foothills of this mountain of negotiations. He will have plenty of time to put his points to Ministers.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way, because I want to answer the hon. Gentleman point by point. I did not interrupt him, although I was sorely tempted on several occasions.
The hon. Gentleman was not as generous as he might have been expected to be in that he did not acknowledge


that in the beef package presented to the House in December the United Kingdom established a system which did least damage to the British beef industry in terms of the effect on the carcase price. It maintained for two years the BVPS, which most thought we would find impossible and which the NFU wanted most. I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, with his customary generosity, would support me in that. We increased the opportunity to pay the suckler cow premium and we ensured that a premium was introduced for other countries. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland must not attack that.
The policy of the United Kingdom must be to ensure that we move towards less intervention and more support to help to reduce the price paid by the housewife. The hon. Member for East Lothian is absolutely right. One of the advantages of the beef variable premium scheme is that it enables the price in the shops to be affected so that more beef is eaten. I agree that beef is very good food. It is a proper part of a balanced diet and we encourage the consumption of beef by ensuring that the price is as low as it can be. The variable premium system helps to reduce the price in the shops while at the same time supporting the return for the producer.
We have never been able to convince other people in the European Community that the premium system is a good thing. The fact that they have now taken on a premium system which is nowhere near good enough for us means that we could not have accepted it. It applies first of all only to male animals and has a top headage limit of 50 animals. Of course, it was set at a level far too low to achieve in the market what the BVPS could achieve. Therefore we could not accept that system. However, we could welcome it in the sense that farmers who have grown used to the premium system are more likely to pressurise their Governments to show them that that is the right way forward. All hon. Members thought that that was a good thing.
The hon. Member for East Lothian invariably attacks me for many things, but I do not think that he has ever seriously attacked me for deceit. I would not in any way want to mislead the House. The fact is that the 435 inelegantly named "mecu" were included in the budget and they are available to be used to take cull cows off the market. The only problem quoted by Agra Europe is that the figure does not appear separately. But as it would not normally appear so in the budget. There should be no problem in practice.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I am trying to answer specific questions. I was asked to give that assurance. That assurance is absolute. There is no difficulty about it. It is available and the Commission will use that money.

Mr. Maclennan: The real issue is not whether the Minister misled the House about this. There was clearly some discussion about the matter. The real issue is, will the money be used and when? The farming community believes that it is urgent that the money is used, and used soon.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Commission quite clearly announced the amount of

money concerned and said that it would be used to take the cull cows off the market. That is quite clear and was understood by all members of the Council, and no one denies that. The amount of money is in the budget for that purpose.
The money has not actually been used so far because we have not entered the marketing year in which the effects of the other matters take place. However, I assure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that the money will be used. There is no difficulty about that and he need have no further worries about it. I will keep him in touch with matters so that he knows how the money is used and the circumstances in which we get the cull cows into third markets.
I want to support the strong demand by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that we should recognise the difficulties of the beef industry. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that it does not help the beef industry to overstate the problems. We must get a sense of balance here. The hon. Member for East Lothian is quite right to state that there has been a reduction in the herd. There has been an increase in the proportion of the home market that is met by home-produced beef.
One of the reasons for the reduction in the herd is that there has been a considerable reduction in the consumption of beef, although that has now been slightly reversed. It is not true that the beef suckler herd has dropped in size each year since 1979. The December 1986 figures show that the beef breeding herd is 1 per cent. larger than it was in December 1985. That is not a huge difference, but we must not overstate the problems of the industry.
What are we to do about the real problems? I have taken on board what has been said about the green pound. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland came out with a marvellous comment on the 6 per cent. green pound devaluation. He said that it was a distortion which should have been rectified by the Government. If the Government could have rectified it, we would have done so on the day that the green punt was changed, because that change had an inescapable effect on the British market. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system. We did not rectify it because there can be a change only if the Council of Ministers agrees and the Commission presents the Council of Ministers with a case for change.
The hon. Gentleman sits there comfortably and says that we should have had the devaluation the next day. If the hon. Gentleman had spent as much time as I and my right hon. Friend spent trying to persuade the other countries, all of which opposed us bar one, which wanted a bit extra for itself, he would understand that we were extremely fortunate to have had a result by December.
It is all very well for the alliance to tell everyone how it would have achieved everything at once, but it has not once said what it would have done. That is the real criticism of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He came here to complain about everything that the Government have done and made no reference to what he would have done. We are used to that. I have taken every speech that the hon. Gentleman has made in the past two years, and I can find not one occasion when a coherent alternative policy has been presented.
The hon. Member for East Lothian is not like that. He may have the wrong policy, but at least it is a policy and we know where we are. The alliance has only one policy.


It is two-tier pricing, which would mean that beef animals in the area that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland represents would compete with beef produced in the richer east of England. The other part of alliance policy was shown in the Bledisloe lecture, which should be read closely. People who do not like it should read the lecture given by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to the Catholic Institute for International Relations and World Wildlife Fund joint operation. He suggested there that it would be a good idea to have a moratorium on technological advance in western agriculture.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to continue.
We should consider the effect of such a moratorium on the beef industry. It would have meant that much of what is important to the industry would not have happened. We would not have the quick finishing system, we would not have gone on with the rota-viral diarrhoea vaccine and we would not now be considering the new arrangements to try to find means to reduce losses in beef calves. We would have none of that technology. That is the hon. Gentleman's policy.

Mr. Livsey: The Minister is talking rubbish, and he knows it.

Mr. Gummer: I am merely stating what the hon. Gentleman presented to the meeting at which I was present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked me to give an assurance that we will fight for the British beef producer in the coming negotiations. I can assure him of that, and that we will try to get the best possible deal. We have taken close note of his view on the green pound, which will play a major part in our negotiations. We will have to see how the suckler cow premium fits into the negotiations and how alterations to other parts of the policy can benefit the livestock producer generally. There is no doubt that many of the livestock producers' problems have derived from the high prices that have been obtained for feed, and that is an important part of any such policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was also right to remind us that this is part of an overall policy and that it includes the way in which we have supported other livestock enterprises, particularly sheep, and includes the imaginative series of alternatives which have been put before the House in the announcements of recent weeks.
In the end, the Government are determined to do what they can to ensure that the beef industry gets through the difficult period ahead, not least because all the indications are that at the end of some 18 months there will be better times in terms of the market, of the coming forward of cows from the dairy industry and of the forecasts of OECD and other organisations.
This is a difficult period for the beef industry and we have a duty to do what we can to ensure that we support it, for, as my hon. Friend said, it is a long-term industry; it cannot be turned on and off or held up for short periods. It must have secure and sensible support, and that the Government are determined to provide.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Power

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When fire was first discovered people must have made it clear that it was extremely dangerous, and they were right to point that out. But if our ancestors had not been prepared to make use of fire, we would probably still be living in caves today.
Vastly larger numbers of people have died from accidents due to fire in the last few years than from accidents due to nuclear power generation, including Chernobyl, which would not and could not have happened here. In the 10 years up to 31 March 1985, there were unfortunately 388 fatal accidents in the coal industry. In the 10 years to February 1987, there were 10 deaths in the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, and none of those was caused by radioactivity.
The Department of the Environment has confirmed that there has never been any hazard to the public caused by the movement of spent fuel and that the low accident rate of the United Kingdom nuclear industry is second to none. The excellent document which I hold in my hand entitled "Here Be No Dragons" states clearly that the odds of an individual losing his or her life through accident in relations to cars in any one year is one in 8,000 whereas in relation to nuclear accidents it is one in 10 million.
Of course, the generation of power has drawbacks—such as acid rain from coal-fired power stations— but we must generate power or freeze. Basically, we must weigh up the risks and not allow our emotions and fear of all forms of nuclear warfare overcome us and confuse our rational judgment. We need energy, and we need nuclear energy if we are to have any hope of helping with the immense task of enhancing living standards. With the ever-increasing numbers in the world's population, we need all the energy we can get, and that means harnessing nuclear power, which fortunately appears to be a great deal safer than many realise.
As many wish to take part in this debate, I shall speak briefly about three points: jobs, safety, and the environmental case for nuclear power,. First, jobs. In Scotland today 50 per cent. of the electricity is already nuclear. This is likely to rise to 60 per cent. when Torness is fully operational. It was a Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who gave clearance for Torness to be built.
Recently I have made inquiries, now that it has been built, about the effect of closing down Torness and phasing out nuclear power. I received a letter from the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 29 January in which he wrote:
The effect on electricity prices can be briefly summarised as follows.

(1) If the Torness station, having been built, were not to be run, this would result in an increase of 10 per cent. in all electricity tariffs throughout Scotland.
(2) In the absence of Torness capacity, it would become necessary in the early 90s to replace it with additional coalfired capacity—an accumulated increase in tariffs of some 20 per cent.; and
(3) If eventually all nuclear power in Scotland were to be closed down and replaced with coalfired stations, there would be an accumulated increase in tariffs of some 30 per cent."
It seems from those facts that, if nuclear power were phased out, electricity tariffs in Scotland would eventually increase by 30 per cent. Quite apart from the effects on


domestic households, it would certainly greatly increase industry's operating costs, pushing up its prices. An inevitable effect would be that industries would shed labour to pay for increased electricity costs and unemployment would rise. As it happens, unemployment in my constituency is possibly the lowest in Scotland, but, even in my constituency, the threat of higher tariffs would bring with it the prospect of fewer jobs. My constituents want lower unemployment.
It is a matter not just of employment in existing industries but of encouraging new industries to become established in Scotland. Both the Scottish development Agency and the South of Scotland Electricity Board can help considerably in this process. For example, the Roche Products factory at Dairy in Ayrshire recently opened an extension. Apparently, the price of electricity was an important element in winning that project for Scotland in competition with other Roche factories in Europe. To give another example, there was a recent announcement of the Kymmene-Stromberg paper mill at Irvine where, again, the electricity supply on reasonable terms was a substantial part of the operating costs.
As I have already mentioned, nuclear power accounts for 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity. Our prices would no longer be competitive with those in Europe if nuclear power were phased out. The expertise of the Scottish Development Agency and of the South of Scotland Electricity Board would be to no avail in trying to attract major industrial development to Scotland if there were much higher electricity prices. It would seem that many thousands of jobs in Scotland are dependent on the existence of competitive electricity pricing— electricity which, in turn, is generated by nuclear power.
In Britain as a whole, well over 100,000 persons depend on the nuclear industry for work, either because they are direct employees—there are 44,000 of them—or because their jobs depend in one way or another on the industry. if nuclear power were to be closed down, all these would be lost over the longer term. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House whether the Sizewell decision will help to guarantee the security of thousands of jobs in Scotland—in Babcock, in Weir and in Howden.
That leads me to the question of safety. Obviously the most rigorous safety requirements are necessary. Recently we have learnt the appalling news of the tragedies at Bhopal in India, at Basel in Switzerland, when the Rhine was poisoned, and, more recently, when there was the extremely serious nuclear accident at Chernobyl. These undoubted tragedies serve to underline the principle that eternal vigilance is the price to be paid not merely for freedom but for all forms of progress which involve technology and the storage of dangerous substances.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurances on the subject of Torness. I am, of course, aware that, before it can operate, each nuclear power station has to be licensed by the nuclear installations inspectorate— an independent, expert body, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive. Nuclear reactors are shut down for routine maintenance and examination every two years, and they cannot restart without the consent of the nuclear installations inspectorate. They are therefore subject to a continuous process of review and

assessment. I believe that the inspectorate would not accept the operation of any nuclear plant if its safety could not be confirmed.
It will interest the House to know that last year, in my constituency, the Liberals distributed a newsletter with a photograph of Liberals outside Torness together with the caption "Liberals oppose nuclear power", or words to that effect. I was interested by that because I understand that the Social Democrats support nuclear power. Tonight perhaps the alliance will make its policy clear.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will give way in a moment, but I wish to finish my remarks on this matter.
More recently Liberals have distributed a leaflet in my constituency that alleges that Torness is unsafe— the heading of the leaflet says just that. I regard safety matters at nuclear power stations as being of paramount importance and of the utmost significance. I hope that the Minister will confirm that safety at all nuclear powers stations will be treated as a matter of paramount importance.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall finish this point and then I will give way to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in whose constituency Torness is located.
I hope that the Minister can give the House the most up-to-date information about Torness and state exactly the facts. I hope that he can confirm that absolute safety requirements will be enforced. I believe that it is in the public interest that the facts should be known. It is right that the nuclear installations inspectorate has recently been to Torness.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is not only the Liberals who are unhappy about Torness. I hope that I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I remind him that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), now a Minister at the Scottish Office, and at one time the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, is also on record as being opposed to a nuclear power station at Torness.
The economic and social effects of the Torness development have not been entirely happy. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Sizewell inquiry and safety, I must remind him that that inquiry specifically recommended the review of evacuation zones around nuclear power stations. In Britain that zone is only two or three km; in the United States it is 16 km; and we are 2,200 km away from Chernobyl. Does he not agree that there is room for improvement in those zones?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for civil defence. We have strongly supported the idea of civil defence in civil matters and natural disasters and there is scope for improvement. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is thinking along the same lines.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). I remind him of my hon. Friend's stand in past general elections when he supported nuclear power. Of course, I am aware that all hon. Members are entitled to respond to the needs of their constituents.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the article in The Scotsman today by its industrial correspondent, Alex Wattie, who writes:
Safety is also of paramount importance, particularly following the Chernobyl disaster … constant monitoring of the environment, with a regular sampling of milk and locally caught fish, is being carried out by the SSEB".
The article concludes—and I quote these words for the benefit of the hon. Member for East Lothian:
Its legacy is a nuclear power station, initially manned by 'incomers' to the area, but in the future providing a continuous source of skilled jobs and training in an environment which will foster technical excellence.
I hope that those words will prove correct.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read more carefully the alliance's policy statements. They make it clear that, at this time, Britain does not need to embark on a programme of building nuclear power stations. I hope that he will abandon the notion that there is any such thing in the nuclear industry as absolute safety or absolute safety provision. It is a concept that I believe the nuclear industry finds impossible to apply without throwing aside completely the generous cost assumptions that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the benefits to be to obtained from nuclear power.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Stringent safety regulations are absolutely necessary. I am interested to hear what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has to say about future power stations, but I am more interested to learn whether he is in favour of closing all existing nuclear power stations. I suspect that he is not; but many of his party are.
In taking up the environmental case for nuclear power, I make a plea for a balanced energy policy that will make use of the massive resources of coal, oil and gas, as well as nuclear power, to ensure a diversity of supply. Nuclear energy has considerable advantages over most other forms of energy generation in its impact on the environment. Emissions from fossil fuels, including sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide, lead to acid rain, and carbon dioxide is the most significant gas in producing the greenhouse effect. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide can be abated, but there is currently no economic, feasible abatement policy for carbon dioxide. Nuclear power generation is almost entirely free of the emission of these pollutants, which have caused so much controversy throughout western Europe, especially in Sweden.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that Overall the coal-fired power stations emit more radiation than nuclear power stations? I understand that the debate about the greenhouse effect is still in the realms of scientific controversy, but one theory is that the amount of carbon dioxide will lead to a raising of temperature levels in the lower atmosphere surrounding the earth. Ultimately this would lead to a heating of the world's atmosphere to such an extent that the polar caps would melt, with the result that much of the world would be submerged. Scotland might be cut in two and much of Galloway might be submerged. But this is still in the realms of scientific speculation.
We should have the moral courage as a nation to come to terms with scientific developments within an entirely safe framework, but it seems that much more should be learnt about the environmental case for nuclear power. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage research and will give a commitment on this issue. It is

highly desirable that Britain and other countries should co-operate effectively, both nationally and internationally, on measures to safeguard the environment for ourselves, our children and our children's children.

Sir Trevor Skeet: We have listened to an extremely good speech of importance to all concerned. It is good to see the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in his place. I noted with some interest his comment on Torness, which we hope will come into operation shortly. He did not tell us whether the Labour party, if it formed a Government after the next general election, would close Torness and place all those involved in it in unemployment. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not springing to his feet——

Mr. Home Robertson: Having taken part in an earlier debate, I understood that it would not be in order for me to speak again in this debate. I acknowledge that, if Torness is commissioned and the reactors are functioning, it would not be realistic to decommission it. That may be; an answer to the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Sir Trevor Skeet: We are beginning to find that the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and the alliance all have different policies. There are; in fact four different policies. It is the Labour party's policy not to commission new stations. The hon. Member for East Lothian has stated his view honestly and told us that if Torness is commissioned he will utilise its power. How wise he is in the circumstances.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: There are many views in all parts of the House about nuclear power. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do the House a service by explaining whether he considers the opposition of the Government Chief Whip— a senior member of the Government—to the reception of low-level nuclear waste in his constituency constitutes opposition to nuclear power, or support for it.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am talking about power stations, not about nuclear waste. The hon. Gentleman was wise to intervene, however. He has Dounreay in his constituency, the only fast breeder reactor in the United Kingdom. The station forms part of the Government's policy, and it will be maintained. It is worth reading the document entitled "The Time Has Come", written by two gentlemen—
Owen and Steel—in 1987. It says On page 59:
Whilst these areas remain our priority for research arid development, we would continue research into nuclear fission power including research into the fast-breeder reactor, which may be needed if renewable resources prove to be less viable than we believe. We remain committed to the Joint European Torus … nuclear fusion project.
Of course, as it is the hon. Gentleman's own station he will not close down the fast breeeder or any of the reprocessing plants— the lot are to remain. Let us examine the Liberal party's policy. The Liberal policy is to close the lot down—not only the power stations but all the reprocessing plants. I am afraid that Liberal party policy was established at the party conference and has come out from time to time.

Mr. Beith: Never on any occasion has the Liberal party favoured closing down all the places at which reprocessing is carried out. Indeed, the continued operation of Sellafield is essential to ensure the safe containment of existing nuclear waste.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The interesting thing about phasing out all nuclear power stations is that reprocessing facilities will ultimately not be required. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that point?
There are roughly 25 nuclear power establishments and other facilities in the United Kingdom. I have mentioned Dounreay, the fast reactor, which we are proud to have in Scotland. That is one in the SDP constituency of Caithness and Sutherland. Calder Hall, a Magnox reactor, is in the Copeland constituency. The Hartlepool reactor is in the constituency of a Labour Member. I believe that it is an AGR. There is another Magnox reactor in Wales, in a constituency belonging to Plaid Cymru. There is an AGR reactor at Torness near Edinburgh in the constituency of the Labour Member for East Lothian. It is most extraordinary that the policy of the Labour and Liberal parties is to close them down. To so do would cause substantial unemployment.
An honest view was expressed by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The first decade's work for THORP is already guaranteed, and work for the second decade is being shortened. To break contracts would involve the Government in huge compensation claims. The damage to Britain as a trading nation would be serious. There is no question of a Labour Government embarking on a policy in any industry that would result in wholesale job losses. Sellafield must remain with its processing plant.
The Liberals and others are trying to have it both ways. They are going to do what the French did when the French Socialist Government was formed a few years ago. The French were going to destroy all their nuclear power stations, but when they got into power they wisely reversed their policies. The reason why Liberal Members have followed this route—the green environmental route—is simply to gain more votes. They are more interested in votes than in principles.
I have mentioned many names. I shall go a little further. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) mentioned some of the employment implications that would be created by the Labour and alliance parties. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is well known to everyone. It employees 16,500 people in Britain. If we consider the whole nuclear industry, we realise that about 150,000 people are directly and indirectly employed. The company has a capital investment programme that works out at an average of £1 million a day for the next 10 years. The total is about £3·7 billion. Furthermore, 90 per cent. of this investment is with British firms, and 70 per cent. of it is in regions of high unemployment. Is it not extraordinary that the alliance wishes to destroy part of Britain's industrial base, and that it also wishes to destroy the Government's policy for regions of high unemployment? We seek to create employment, but the alliance seeks to create unemployment.
BNFL has a turnover of £629 million, with exports accounting for approximately a third of that turnover. It has firm orders that are worth over £4 billion for the first 10 years capacity of a plant that is being built, and two thirds of those orders are from overseas customers. It is also the biggest yen earner in the United Kingdom.
It is most extraordinary that this bunch of— I was going to say jackals, but I shall not say it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No; I did not say it. I said that I was going to say it. It is extraordinary that this bunch of politicians want to destroy all that has been built up

over the years. I am referring, not to energy policy, but to the facilities created and the amount of compensation that would have to be paid for the cancellation of orders. The company is servicing both United Kingdom industry and overseas industry.

Mr. Home Robertson: Nobody would accuse the hon. Gentleman of being a politician. As he is so concerned about areas of high unemployment and other aspects of energy policy, will he say something about the effects of the Government's policies, which he supports, on the coal mining industry?

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not an amateur. We are talking about nuclear power. I do not intend to be drawn into a discussion of the coal mining industry. However, the coal industry is in great difficulties. The price of United Kingdom coal is very much higher than the world price of coal. The CEGB has to pay on average about £42 a tonne for it. The world price of coal is very much lower than that. I think that we had better keep off coal for the time being.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: No, I want to make a little progress with my speech. It is so disappointing that the Liberal party has no realistic policy for the nuclear power industry.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will not allow me to say anything.

Sir Trevor Skeet: When the Liberal party gets together with the Social Democratic party the policy is even more disastrous.
As for the nuclear power versus coal argument, the nuclear industry has a clear advantage. I have figures here that show that, taking Hinkley Point B and Drax, the difference between the two prices gives the nuclear industry a very considerable cost advantage. There are seven ways by which this can be assessed. To be fair, one of them favours the coal industry, but all the others favour the nuclear industry. The price is about 2·09p/kw hour, as opposed to Drax, which is 2·26p/kw hour. That was also borne out by the Layfield report, which said that it would be much better to build Sizewell B than to go ahead with the building of coal-fired power stations. However, the alliance wishes us to erect windmills, to go ahead with the Severn estuary barrage and to turn to biomass and all the other alternatives that will be unable to contribute very much to our energy resources by 2000 AD.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to comparative figures. Is he able to say whether the figure that he gave for Hinkley Point B included any element for the decommissioning of that power station at the end of its active life, and whether it also includes the sums that must inevitably be spent on reprocessing waste and ultimately disposing of that waste?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was just coming on to that point.
I have a letter from the chairman of the CEGB, dated 12 March 1987. It says:
The analysis makes full provision for the costs of decommissioning each reactor and for the disposal of radioactive waste.
The matters which the hon. Gentleman thought has not been included have been, and if he would like a copy of this letter I shall be only too glad to send him one.
I shall mention one or two other matters to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with this important issue of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is safe, appropriate and many countries have it. It is worth noting that the Japanese obtain 27 per cent. of their electricity from nuclear energy. By 1995 the figure will be 35 per cent., and later on over 60 per cent. In West Germany, since Chernobyl, the government have confirmed that four further power stations will come into operation by 1990. At present 98 nuclear reactors are operating in the United States, with a further 27 expected to come on stream in the next few years. After Chernobyl one would have thought that the Soviet Union would be a little concerned about some of its errors in design, but it has decided to double its capacity over the next decade.
What do we find? People the world over are building nuclear power stations because of the many advantages of nuclear power. We find that in 1986 there were 21 completions of reactors in eight states, making a world total of about 394, and that comprises 15 per cent. of world electricity capacity. I am quite sure that the Minister will mention this. For the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate safety is a paramount consideration and successive inquiries have shown that nuclear energy is a safe way of dealing with these matters.
I give another illustration from France. It has a nuclear generating capacity of about 65 per cent. of total electricity and industry pays about 30 per cent. less for its electricity than it does in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: No; I have given way a lot to the hon. Gentleman. He asks unimportant questions. I hope that he will make his own contribution, I am sure, bearing in mind some of the strictures that I have made with regard to alliance policy, that he would want to say something on this.
France can produce electricity well below the costs of production of the CEGB in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wallace: What about the subsidies? Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: In the United Kingdom the coal industry is heavily subsidised, as the hon. Gentleman possibly knows. Coal is not sold at world prices; it is sold at special prices in the United Kingdom. The nuclear industry in France is doing remarkably well and it is not being subsidised by the Government. It is beginning to pay off its loans, due to the profitability of the electricity that it is producing. If it is economic for France to produce nuclear energy—it is producing over 65 per cent. of its electricity by nuclear means—why are we being anxious about pursuing this course? We must congratulate the Government on the course that they have taken.
I realise that I should not take up too much time. This is a Consolidated Fund debate and many important matters are being considered. The alliance is in a complete shambles. It does not know where it stands on nuclear power. In 20 years' time the Labour party will awake from its sleep and realise what a mistake it has made. Fortunately, Britain has one saving grace. It has a Conservative Government and is likely to have a further one. I am quite certain that people will back us if we say that we will go ahead with our nuclear policy, which has not only proved beneficial to the United Kingdom but has

proved useful to industry. Nuclear energy is also valuable to the consumer, who wants a cheap and inexpensive form of heating.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I should like to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) who made an outstanding speech. He had the good fortune to open this debate, and his speech reflects the greatest possible credit upon him and on the constituency that he serves with such diligence.
I should like to tell hon. Members how nuclear power affects my constituency. I have a solemn duty to represent my constituents on this subject. My constituency consumes large quantities of energy, because it is in the centre of an area of Britain of which I am immensley proud—the black country, which has heavy engineering and manufacturing industries of all kinds. I draw to the attention of the House the largest employer in my constituency, the hand-cut crystal glass industry which has such wonderful companies as Royal Brierley, Stuart Crystal, Webb Corbett and Wordsley Crystal.
As a conscientious Member of Parliament, I regularly visit the companies in this industry. When I have discussions with the people there, they speak strongly on two points. They say, "In financial terms, Mr. Member of Parliament, because our business is so centred on exports, we must have an exchange rate of about 1·50 because that makes us very competitive."
Their second telling point is related to this debate. They say, "Keep our energy costs low." By doing that we enable those companies to be competitive and they can create jobs. Every hon. Member must be dominated in his constituency work by the creation of jobs. It is a reflection on the Government and, dare I say it, on the efforts that I have sought to make that in the last 15 months that unemployment in my constituency has dropped from 16·4 per cent. to the current level of 12·2 per cent. This did not happen by chance. It happened because positive policies are being pursued that reflect the fact that we are consumers of energy.
The most important thing to which the House should address itself is the end result of nuclear power. The message that I give to the House from Dudley, West is that it means jobs. What is the Government's strategy on energy sources? I quietly and soberly researched the answer to that question and I give it to the Minister who will reply to the debate. We have massive supplies and reserves of coal, oil and gas, but this debate is about something else. We have a long experience of civil nuclear power.
In this uncertain world, it is not possible to predict the future with any accuracy. This country must make full use of all its resources by having complete diversity of supply and not becoming over-dependent on any one fuel. Many questions have been asked in this House about the coal industry.
It is as crystal-clear as the glass that is made in my constituency that the Government invest £2 million per day in the British coal industry with the aim of creating a successful coal mining industry that can offer reliable supplies of coal at competitive prices. The Government, encouraged by the exploitation of the oil supplies surrounding Britain, know that this investment will give


operators the confidence to make long-term decisions. In addition, energy requirements can be met if we continue to encourage the safe development of civil nuclear power.
I have established the need of my constituents to have jobs and safe energy supplies. I have conveyed to this House the message that we need critically this competitive supply of energy. It is foolish to stand up in this House and degrade or abandon nuclear power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, to abandon nuclear power would create an undisputed increase of at least 15 per cent. in energy costs.
Such an increase in energy costs would have a dramatic and damaging effect on jobs in my constituency, and responsibility for that would lie at the feet of those who pursue a policy of abandoning nuclear power. Job losses in my constituency would be considerable, and 185,000 jobs would be lost in the nuclear industry itself. I, as a Member of this House, would never subscribe to that. We want competitive energy in my constituency.
I believe that, when the pages of history are written, they will record the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to go down the avenue of pursuing nuclear power as one of the bravest and most courageous actions—based on common sense, commerce and economic—hat has ever been taken by a British Government.
I speak with some feeling when I tell the House that on 26 April last year I was in Poland. I travelled through Poland and East Germany into east Berlin. When I went through Checkpoint Charlie and came into west Berlin, I was astonished at what happened to me. I was quizzed in considerable detail and given strict medical instructions about the possibility that I might be subject to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. It is an indictment of the Soviet Union that in that situation the authorities did not tell their own people that that disaster had taken place. It was only when I returned to this country that, I am proud to tell the House, medical supervison was given to all the people who had travelled through that area. That reflected the greatest possible credit on our medical teams, to whom I pay tribute.
This morning, I had a delightful task to perform. I was taken to the Upper Waiting Room, in the corridors of this House, and I had the opportunity, which I counted as a privilege, to introduce my hon. Friend the Minister from the Department of the Environment to open an exhibition on the emissions of waste and toxic fumes from motor cars. I commend that exhibition to every hon. Member, and I applaud the fact that 1987 has been designated as European Year of the Environment. The environment is an important feature in a debate about nuclear fuel. It is critically important that we have not only safer energy, which I have stressed, not only competitive energy, which I have outlined, but energy which will have a limited adverse effect on the environment that we all love so dearly.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister, from the case that has been presented, to recognise that there is a need for further research—nationally and internationally. I am pleased to say that on the last occasion that the House debated the Consolidated Fund, I was fortunate enough to lead on the first subject, civil defence. If hon. Members are interested enough to look through the pages of Hansard for that debate, they will realise that civil defence

is a question not of war but of being able to provide facilities and support for any emergency that may take place, particularly in nuclear energy.
The message from my constituency is simple. We want energy. We consume energy and we want it at a competitive price, and we would condemn the Opposition parties if they ever had the chance of pursuing their policies, because they would increase energy costs by 15 per cent. I wish to safeguard the future employment of the constituents that I have the honour to represent in this House. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West for the great service that he has done the House by raising this subject for debate.

Mr. Keith Best: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) knows my constituency well. I shall say a few words about the effect that this debate will have in my constituency. I speak in the knowledge that I have subject number 35 in the debate. In reasonable anticipation that that subject, the development of north-west Wales, will not be reached before the House concludes the debate, I have packed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales off to bed, and decided instead to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this debate.
The debate is relevant to north-west Wales not least because two of the proposed sites for new nuclear power stations are at Trawsfyndd and in my constituency at Wylfa. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the Front Bench, because he knows my constituency well. It was a great pleasure and privilege for me to invite him to my constituency to tour Wylfa recently.
Wylfa can be described as the jewel in the crown of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Indeed, when, after the Chernobyl incident, Greenpeace published a full-page advertisement in leading newspapers stating two categories of nuclear power stations, those it thought should be closed down immediately and those it thought should be phased out over a period, I noted with interest that Wylfa did not appear in either list. I thought that Greenpeace had made a mistake, and I was not going to let that pass. I thought that I would gain some political capital out of it by issuing a press release stating how marvellous it was that Greenpeace has supported the retention of Wylfa because it had not been mentioned in either of the lists. I did Greenpeace a disservice. It was not negligence on its part to have excluded Wylfa from either of the two lists; in fact, it was a deliberate policy. That merely endorses the description I have already given of that power station as the jewel in the crown of the CEGB. Its safety record is second to none.
The important point is that we will be considering whether there should be a new nuclear power station when Wylfa comes to the end of its life at about the turn of the century. Sadly, it has become a party political issue. I have stated clearly, on behalf of my constituents, that I believe that the majority of them want to see a new nuclear power station there, not only in their own interests, but in the interests of the nation as a whole. All three of my political opponents, the Labour party, Plaid Cymru and the Social Democratic party, are against the power stations. I always forget whether it is the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party, because it changes from time to time. I believe that it is SDP at present but as the SDP candidate


lost his deposit in the 1983 election and the Liberal candidate lost his deposit in 1979 I am not particularly concerned. They started their lives by saying, effectively, that all nuclear power should be terminated forthwith but now, no doubt in the light of popular demand, they have decided that we should not have a second nuclear power station but that Wylfa should be allowed to see its natural life to its conclusion.
They are short sighted, even from a parochial point of view, because Wylfa represents job opportunities for some 1,000 of my constituents. Over 600 of them are employed directly and jobs in the downstream industries in companies such as Anglesey Scaffolding and others, which are directly reliant upon Wylfa nuclear power station, would disappear if there were not to be a replacement for Wylfa.
Indeed, it goes beyond that. I have recently been in communication with the managing director of Anglesey Aluminium who confirms that, although it would be foolish to pretend that the company would not be put in jeopardy principally as a result of a failure to have Wylfa B, nevertheless, its continuance would be put in greater doubt if there were not to be a nuclear power station there because, in times of difficulty with transmission lines across the water on to the main line, Anglesey Aluminium, which has to operate a 24-hour production line because of its productive method would be inhibited by not having that direct link of power which it presently obtains from Wylfa. That is another 700 or more jobs that could be put in jeopardy.
What is pleasant in the debate we have had so far is that the main arguments in favour of nuclear power have not been put on that parochial level, but on a far wider level of the general benefit to the United Kingdom. That is how I wish to continue my remarks. I believe that we need a nuclear power industry to provide for the future energy needs of this country.
I welcome the fact that the Government have devoted increased resources to research into alternative energy sources. There is a large scheme at Cardigan bay, researching windmill power. However, I believe that photovoltaic cells will probably ultimately provide the most fruitful source of alternative power. Those matters are in the incipient stages of research at present and they will not come fulness for a long time. We need to ensure that this country's competitiveness and the needs of the elderly, who will need heat in cold weather, will not be jeopardised by short-term, foolish ideas based on the foolish belief that they are populist, when in fact they do not coincide with the wishes of the majority of people in this country.
I was heartened by a recent opinion poll that was commissioned by the BBC, which was making a programme about my constituency, which it regarded as a marginal seat—for the life of me, I cannot think why. However, it commissioned an opinion poll to be carried out by Beaufort Research, a professional firm of pollsters in Cardiff. If I may digress briefly, that poll showed that I would obtain 38 per cent. of the vote, the Labour party 30 per cent. and Plaid Cymru 20 per cent. However, I take no comfort from that.
The main reason why I mention that poll is that it showed that, when asked whether they wanted nuclear power to be retained or expanded, the great majority of people replied in the affirmative. That shows the wishes of the majority of the British people, who are far too sensible

and who understand far too readily that we need a nuclear power industry to provide a major contribution to our energy, and who are not over-swayed by the problems that may have been indentified about nuclear power in the past.
It is interesting to note that the exhaustive Layfield report on Sizewell contains several note worthy quotations about the safety record. Paragraph 2.124(c), for example, states:
the safety record of the CEGB is outstanding by any standards".
Paragraph 2.125 states:
I am confident that such reliance is justified. My confidence is founded principally of the quality of the CEGB's and the NII's evidence, and the way in which it withstood searching and extensive examination. Both organisations demonstrated an impressive degree of technical competence. No significant shortcomings were revealed.
One can say, with fairness, that we have the safest nuclear industry anywhere in the world, not least because of the independence and the investigative powers of the nuclear installations inspectorate, which is almost unique to this country.
The greatest recent threat or challenge to nuclear power was the terrible disaster of Chernobyl which directly affected my constituency. The radiocaesium levels in the sheep confronted the sheep farmers with grave difficulties; they were unable to take their sheep to market for a substantial period, with all the consequent financial loss. Chernobyl demonstrated, beyond all measure, that even if we relinquished all nuclear power forthwith—if that could be done—we should still be subject to the problems of the nuclear power industry in any other country. Chernobyl proved that we cannot stand in isolation. Unless one increases the powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or in some way provides greater safeguards for those countries with safety standards lower than our own, we shall still be subject to their problems. That is noteworthy because, if we do away with our nuclear power in the fallacious belief that that will safeguard our citizens in some way; we do so in the face of Chernobyl, which demonstrated that completely the opposite is the case.
I have already welcomed the additional resources that the Government have made available. When we talk about alternative energy, that includes the Severn barrage. The Severn is generally reckoned to be the most advantageous site in the world for such a barrage. Yet, even if that barrage were miraculously built and operated at maximum efficiency from tomorrow, it could provide no more than 5 per cent. of our total energy needs at today's demand level, not to mention the demand level when the construction would be complete in 15 years' time if the decision were taken now to proceed with the scheme.
The case for nuclear power as has been made without a shadow of doubt. It is conclusive at parochial level for the jobs that depend on it and, more important, at national level as British industry must continue to be competitive with countries which have embraced nuclear power and are now beginning to derive the benefits from it.
The industry can be shown to be inherently safe. Our safety standards are in advance of any other, if not all other, countries. The pollution that emanates from coal-fired power stations and other forms of energy production is absent from nuclear energy production.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Best: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have just reached my peroration. I hope that he may make his speech.
Our safety record and the needs of the future demand that we continue to have a significant amount of our energy produced by nuclear power. I compliment the Government on having the courage to determine that that should be the case.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: It would be churlish of the House not to congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on his good fortune in having this subject included in this debate on the Consolidated Fund. Nuclear power is an emotive issue and it does not do any good if we challenge the sincerity of individual speeches. We may question hon. Members' judgment, but that is a different matter. I do not challenge the sincerity of any hon. Members, but I question their judgment.
The logic of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) is peculiar and perverted. He painted what we in Scotland know as the doomsday scenario: because nuclear power is generated all round the world and is unsafe, if an accident occurs we shall share the full horrors of it. He spoke of doubts about the environmental effect of nuclear power and mentioned recent opinion poll results. He was on dangerous ground there, because in Scotland the polls show 47 per cent. for Labour, 19 per cent. for the Tories, 19 per cent. for the alliance and 11 per cent. for the Scottish National party. If we pursued the hon. Gentleman's logic, we would say that, therefore, the majority of Scottish people are against nuclear power. [Interruption.] I am not seeking to argue with the hon. Gentleman or to offend him; I am pursuing his logic and showing him the danger of calling opinion polls in aid.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West made a fair case and tackled the question in three parts: jobs, safety and the environment. He would not expect me to agree with his figures for the cost of electricity, if we do not have nuclear power. He is well aware that the Coalfields Community Council produced a research document. The document considers what would happen if we did not have nuclear power. According to that document, there would have to be an increase of 10 per cent. in generation production in the United Kingdom as a whole and a 19 per cent. increase in Scotland. There is a difference of opinion in these matters. However, that report has been well documented and was produced by Stephen Fothergill, who is an economic lecturer at Reading university, on behalf of the Coalfields Communities campaign.
We must consider safety. Quoting statistics of mining disasters in relation to the number of people who have lost their lives in that industry is not sufficient. Indeed, one of those statistics was my father. I would not agree with an analogy drawn between what happens in a mining disaster and what happens in a nuclear disaster. A mining disaster affects only that particular area. In a mining disaster, that area need not be sterilised for hundreds or even thousands of years. However, if a nuclear disaster befalls us it could affect the whole of Europe.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West also referred to the Sizewell decision. I am entitled to answer the hon. Gentleman's points as I see matters. The hon. Gentleman referred to jobs in Scotland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman read the report of the debate on Sizewell

in the House. That was a very interesting debate. Even with his contacts, he would find that if he was to call in aid Babcock Power Ltd. with regard to jobs, he would have to admit that it was on record that Babcock has stated that it would be perfectly happy to build any kind of plant for which it would be responsible if that was a coal-fired power station. The whole question of Sizewell hingeing on the job opportunities of Babcock Power Ltd. according to the company's statement is not valid and does not make the point.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to jobs. He must be well aware of the fact that the Scottish coal industry has suffered a significant contraction since the end of the miner's strike. Employment in the industry has fallen from nearly 14,000 at the time of the strike to below 6,000. Capacity has been rationalised in British Coal's so-called survival plan with the closure of Comrie colliery and the merging of operations at Monktonhall and Bilston Glen in Lothian and Barony and Killoch in Ayrshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of those facts.
The Scottish coal industry, like that in Great Britain as a whole, remains heavily dependent upon one customer—the electricity generation industry. During the early 1980s, this dependence declined somewhat, but in 1985–86 the South of Scotland Electricity Board—accounted for two thirds of British Coal's output sold in Scotland. In turn, the SSEB has traditionally purchased most of its supplies of coal from British Coal. Under the purchase agreement signed in 1985, 90 per cent. of the SSEB's annual coal requirements for electricity generation to Scottish customers would be purchased from British Coal. In 1985–86, 92 per cent. of the SSEB's coal and slurry purchases were supplied by British Coal. Therefore, it is clear that the future of the coal industry in Scotland is heavily dependent upon the policies and decisions of the SSEB in relation to electricity generation. Of particular importance is the impending commissioning of the new nuclear power station at Torness which will increase the degree of over-capacity in the SSEB generation system. It will therefore displace coalburn and decrease coal purchases, which means a decrease in jobs. The SSEB's requirements are estimated to be between 3 million and 4 million tonnes a year. Reduced purchases would be a serious blow to the Scottish coal industry.
In 1983–84, the SSEB bought about 5 million tonnes of coal slurry from British Coal. In 1985–86 it bought about 7 million tonnes, but some of that was to replenish stocks. The SSEB recently agreed to buy only 3·6 million tonnes in 1986–87. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talked of the generating capacity in the SSEB. Its characteristics in terms of plant by type can be described as follows: Longannet, coal; Cockenzie, coal; Kincardine, coal; Methil, slurry; Inverkip, which the SSEB proposes to close, oil: Hunterston A and B, nuclear—one Magnox and one AGR. We also have hydro-electric and gas turbines. We have installed capacity of 7,870 MW, but that works out at about 6,160 MW.
The electricity supplied during 1985–86 was considerably below capacity. There is substantial overcapacity. The system load factor for the year was about 56 per cent., while the system maximum demand recorded on 7 January 1986 was 4,237 MW, or 69 per cent. of potential generation. Available capacity exceeds system maximum demand by 47 per cent. With a safety margin of 28 per


cent., which is standard, maximum continuous capacity exceeds system maximum demand by 15 per cent. excluding the 1.284 MW in rotational storage at Inverkip.
The SSEB bought 8.7 million tonnes of coal in 1980–81, 7·78 million tonnes in 1981–82, 6·25 million tonnes in 1982–83, 4·95 million tonnes in 1983–84—I shall not give the figure for 1984–85 as it was the year of the strike—and 7·48 million tonnes in 1985–86, which is high because of replenishing stocks.
The Scottish coal industry is heavily dependent on one customer—electricity generation. It bought two thirds of British Coal output in Scotland last year. The Scottish electricity generation system, however, has substantial overcapacity. Commissioning the new AGR plant at Torness will increase capacity in the south of Scotland electricity system by more than 20 per cent. If commissioned, Torness will be used for baseload generation and could produce electricity equivalent to about 4 million tonnes of coal. Its impact on coalburn will depend on the amount of use made by the SSEB of its capacity and the amount of electricity generated for export to the CEGB.
It has been pointed out in the debate that following the Chernybol accident there have been significant pressures on the whole nuclear power programme and on the commissioning of Torness. In considering the environment, we must be aware of certain dangers. One is the risk of a major accident at a nuclear power station, and Chernobyl gave a chilling glimpse of what such an accident can involve. About 50,000 people had to be evacuated from a 19-mile zone around the Chernobyl plant, the radiation was so intense as to be lethal in two hours and many square miles of Soviet earth are now poisoned by radioactive isotopes and will pose a threat to human life for many decades to come.
We must also consider what has happened in other countries. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I visited Norway about a year ago. We learned there that the reindeer herds in the north had to be slaughtered because of radiation. There are great dangers involved in disposing of nuclear waste, which is an unavoidable by-product of the nuclear industry. The problem of its disposal and the dangers of pollution have yet to be dealt with satisfactorily by any country.
Apart from the public response in this country to what happened in Chernobyl, consider what has happened elsewhere. Yugoslavia has cancelled plans for a second reactor; orders in Belgium and the Netherlands have been delayed; Italy's only new reactor project has been halted by the local council; Austria is dismantling a reactor unused; Finland has suspended a decision to build another reactor; Sweden, where nuclear equals about 50 per cent. of electricity generation, plans to phase out nuclear power in under 25 years; and while nuclear power in the United States is planned to increase by 40 per cent. in the next few years, that will come from reactors which were started 15 years ago, there have been no new orders since 1978 and there are no plans for new orders in the foreseeable future. My view, therefore, is that no more civil nuclear power stations should he built and that we should make a start on phasing out the existing ones.
Two measures would provide help to the Scottish coal industry—a moratorium on the use of oil for electricity generation, and the full use of the transmission link for the export of electricity to the CEGB. Any short-term increase

in generation costs could be justified, bearing in mind the potential long-run economic and social costs of the loss of deep-mined capacity.
We have in Britain 11 first generation Magnox stations, 10 of which have been operating for 20 years. It was intended that a safety review should he carried out prior to them being permitted to continue beyond that period. Only one such review, relating to Calder Hall, has been published. We have five second generation stations, AGRs, and a further two are under construction. One is Torness, and, based on what we know, it should not be commissioned. In terms of energy demand, we do not need it. There should be more public evidence about whether it could be converted to coal. The commissioning of Torness would have a devastating effect on the coal industry.
Chernobyl illustrated that nuclear power is unforgiving and dangerous. That is the main reason why Torness should be halted and why we should phase out nuclear power.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and should like to express the thanks of the House for the perceptive and knowledgeable way in which he introduced this useful debate on an important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) spoke with an expert knowledge on the subject, born of many years of long experience. My hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), who has a great constituency interest in this matter, made helpful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who takes a great interest in these matters and in whose constituency are the headquarters of the National Nuclear Corporation. and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) were present throughout the debate.
I regret that, apart from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), we have not had the benefit of any Labour Members in the Chamber throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has given the benefit of his baleful sincerity in our proceedings and the unanimity of the alliance has been greatly helped by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) absenting himself shortly after we began.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned Torness. I should like to reassure him that modifications to some of the control rods at Torness have been carried out, and it is hoped that that will solve the problem. Rigorous tests on the modifications will be carried out under nuclear installations inspectorate supervision before fuel loading proceeds. I understand that the South of Scotland Electricity Board hopes to commission reactor 1 in the autumn of this year, with reactor 2 coming on stream next year. I reassure my hon. Friend that there is no possibility of commissioning Torness until the nuclear installations inspectorate is fully satisfied that all safety requirements have been met.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West that the Government and the energy industries are fully conscious of the vital importance of safety. The nuclear power industry's record on both site and environmental safety is nothing short of excellent.


There have been only 10 accidents, each resulting in a single death, in the nuclear power industry in the 10 years to February this year and none of those involved radiation.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that radioactive emissions from coal-fired power stations are considerably higher than those from nuclear stations. The collective permitted dose equivalent is about 5 man Sieverts per GW year of electricity generated from coal-fired power stations and for nuclear stations it is less than 2 man Sieverts. It should be stressed that the average annual individual dose from the normal operation of coal-fired stations is less than half the dose that a person would receive from cosmic rays during a holiday flight to Spain.

Mr. Steve Norris: That is another reason for not going to Spain.

Mr. Goodlad: Or, indeed, to anywhere else involving a similar flight length.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned the accident at Chernobyl. It was the result of repeated deliberate non-compliance with the safety procedures by the operators. Sir Frank Layfield in his report on Sizewell noted that the CEGB had a good record in selecting and training staff and had the resources and commitment to deal with human aspects of operating stations. He also praised the technical competence of the nuclear installations inspectorate. The Soviet leadership has recognised that openness and accountability are fundamental to the efficient and proper management of its industries.
It is said that the chief motive of the staff was to complete their tests as expeditiously as possible. The failure to adhere to instructions when preparing to carry out the tests, the non-compliance with the testing programme and carelessness in handling the reactor facility were evidence that the staff were insufficiently familiar with the specialist features and technological processes of a nuclear reactor. They had lost any feelings for the hazards involved.
It is also said that the designers of the reactor facility did not provide for protective safety systems capable of preventing an accident in the combination of circumstances prevailing in unit 4 at Chernobyl. Those circumstances involved the deliberate switching off of technical protection systems coupled with violations of the operating regulations. They considered that the conjunction of events that caused the accident to be impossible. Thus, the prime cause of the accident was the extremely improbable violation of instructions and operating rules committed by the staff of the unit.
There is a stark contrast between that and Sir Frank Layfield's high opinion of the CEGB and the nuclear installations inspectorate's technical and engineering competence. It is also in contrast to the paramount commitment that the generating board and the inspectorate have given to safety and their excellent safety records.
The National Radiological Protection Board has published today its first assessment, under an EC contract, of the effects of Chernobyl on Europe. It puts the accident into a helpful perspective. On average, the extra radiation received was 16 per cent. of that which we receive from natural background sources and about the same as the

dose that is received from cosmic rays during a return flight to New York. Because of the restrictions on contaminated food, the effects of that extra radiation of 16 per cent. were greatly reduced. Over the next 50 years, some 30 million people in Europe are expected to die from "natural" cancers. The "extra" cancers due to Chernobyl are predicted to be about 1,000. Thus, there will be one additional Chernobyl cancer for each 30,000 "natural" cancers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West rightly emphasised the worries that people have about the environmental effects. I reiterate that the study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, published yesterday, although in the Library of the House for some time, found no indication of any abnormal pattern of leukaemias around CEGB nuclear installations. Therefore, no causal connection has been found between leukaemia and radiation from nuclear installations.
We are all exposed to natural radiation from many sources. Natural sources account for about 87 per cent. of the radiation dose to the population of the United Kingdom. The remainder is due to medical exposure such as the effect of X-rays. Discharges from the nuclear industry account for 0·1 per cent.—that is, one part in a thousand—of the radiation that is received by the British population. That study has been referred to the independent Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for advice on the implications of the report and the need for any further work.
My hon. Friend referred to the greenhouse effect; that is a major topic of international research, and the United Kingdom is participating in that research. The evidence suggests that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising slowly, with an increase of 25 per cent. since 1800. The average atmospheric temperature has increased by between 0·5 deg C and 10 deg C over the same period. Fossil fuel burning and deforestation affect the atmospheric carbon dioxide content, although there are many other important factors.
It is too early to predict, with any confidence, what the long-term effect is likely to be on the world climate and environment. Any changes are likely to occur slowly, over many decades. We can be certain, however, that nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide. Increased nuclear capacity can therefore help to contain the level of carbon dioxide emissions that are attributable to electricity generation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West referred to employment implications. The jobs of about 150,000 depend directly or indirectly on the continuation of our nuclear industry. New nuclear stations will cheapen our electricity supplies, and about 800,000 people work in industries whose competitiveness depends on cheap electricity. Closing our existing nuclear stations prematurely and not replacing them would put many of those jobs at risk.
Time, alas does not allow a full deployment of the reasons why Her Majesty's Government have taken the decision that the Sizewell power station——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the Minister will conclude his reply in one sentence. The time for the debate is about to elapse.

Mr. Goodlad: Perhaps I should say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are convinced that nuclear power is the


safest, cleanest and cheapest form of generation. We think that the parties who have abrogated their responsibility to future generations by forswearing its benefits to Britain, Europe and the world are betraying a great trust.

Orders of the Day — Research Councils

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Consolidated Fund debate comes at a time that is most opportune for considering what must surely be one of the most important purposes for which it is used— the funding of Britain's research and development.
The funding of the research councils is in jeopardy. It is an appalling indictment of the Government's mismanagement that after a give-away Budget the research councils are virtually having to suspend all new grants for scientific research at a time of unprecedented fertility in the applications of new science.
There are three decision processes that have created the present crisis. The first process is financial management within the current year. The second is the general level of research council funding in relation to other countries. The third is the funding of research and development by Government and industry and the effectiveness of its application.
The Government have muddled all three processes. Thus, when the Prime Minister was asked last Thursday during Prime Minister's Question Time about the Science and Engineering Research Council freeze she replied in terms of the overall level of Government funding of civil research and development as a proportion of national income, as if the research councils were free to juggle their own resources.
When the academic salary increases were agreed by the Government, they made at least some money available to universities to meet the cost of them. Universities can borrow money and carry funds over from one year to another, but research councils cannot do so, yet the Government made no extra money available to the councils for the salary increases that they had no part in deciding. The Government must now make available to the research councils the money that is needed in the current financial year and in 1987–88, or the councils will have no alternative but to award virtually no new research grants for the next six months, and the effect will carry on over into next year.
Starting in October, the Medical Research Council will have to cut the new awards that it makes from the expected 500 to probably about 190. The Science and Engineering Research Council has had a substantial increase in its funding this year. Most of the increases went on the Cray computer at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, for which the Government had deliberately made specific provision, and also on the increase in the CERN subscription due to the depreciation of sterling. The increase in the CERN subscription swallowed up almost all the Government's provision above previous plans that was announced last November.
What was the Science and Engineering Research Council expected to do? Should it have given notice that it would leave CERN in January 1988, while the European inquiry, set up by the Secretary of State's own initiative, was still in train? That would have destroyed Britain's acceptability as a research partner in increasingly important international collaborative programmes.
The areas that the Science and Engineering Research Council has been able to exempt amount to only 20 per cent. of the grant expenditure that it expected to incur in its third grant round this year. The research councils had


made provision for salary increases, but had they provided anything like the 24 per cent. agreed by the Government, the Department of Education and Science and the Treasury would have been the first to stop them. There was no way in which responsible financial management in the research councils could have protected them from the drastic steps that they now have to take.
If the Secretary of State cannot find the money straight away, the heads of the research councils should go, as is their right, to the Prime Minister. They will find that they will first have to educate her, as she is working with quite out-of-date figures. The comparison that she makes is expenditure as a proportion of national output. The latest OECD figures for civil research and development are for 1984 or 1985. The specially collected figures for academic and academically related research in the Advisory Board on Research Councils' science policy study 2 (table 40), conducted by Irvine and Martin for the ABRC, go back as far as 1982. Even then the United Kingdom was well behind France and Germany, but it was well ahead in Government-funded civil research and development as a proportion of national output. It was ahead of Japan and the United States.
The private sector and industry in the United States, Germany and Japan funded, and still fund vastly more research and development than the private sector and industry do in this country. In more recent years since 1982, which is the latest year for which we have systematic data, both the United States and Japan have been taking steps greatly to increase Government funding of civil research and development, and we feel the effect of that in the brain drain today.
The budgetary process in the United States is no model for government anywhere, but federal funding for basic science in universities and colleges in the United States increased by 30 per cent. in real terms in the first four years of President Reagan's Administration, although the Carter energy programmes in the industry were cut. When I quoted that figure of 30 per cent. in real terms in the first four years of the Carter Administration in a debate, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the present Secretary of State's predecessor, did not believe it. He thought that it must be in money terms. In fact, the figure was supplied by the President's scientific adviser and confirmed to me by him.
Since 1984, federal funding of basic science in the United States has continued to increase. The National Institute of Health budget for last year has been increased by 17 per cent. this year. The President tried to cut the increase in January, but he has now backed down. Earlier this month the National Institute of Health was told by the Administration to spend the full $6·2 billion appropriated by Congress for 1987.
There is great concern in the United States about industrial competitiveness, just as there is great concern in this country on the part of everyone but, apparently, the Government. The President has sent a competiveness Bill to Congress. It calls, among other things, for a doubling of the National Science Foundation's budget over the next five years, bringing the NSF total to $3·2 billion in 1992. Congress has given the President a rough ride on defence research and development, but it is likely to give him all that he asks for, and more, for civil research and development.
Those two increases alone—the National Institute of Health increase, which has already occurred, and the National Science Foundation increase, which is planned—are putting the United States way ahead of us in the federal funding of basic science as a proportion of national product, whatever happens to the NASA and energy research budgets. And that is on top of the huge increases in private research funding in the United States.
For example, last year the University of Texas at Austin created 24 new chairs in computer science alone. A $24 million increase in oil royalties was matched by $24 million of private donations. The oil royalties disappeared because of the fall in the price of oil, but another $24 million was raised privately to make good the deficit, and the endowment went ahead. Stanford university is embarking on a new endowment appeal which can only be compared with the total of the United Kingdom's science budget. It is such positive action in the United States, contrasted with the negative attitude of the British Government, that has set the brain drain running again at full bore.
While Japan's formidable industry-funded civil research and development forges ahead—now at 2·8 per cent of its national product, compared with our 0·8 per cent.—talk of increasing its Government funding of basic research is gathering the momentum that we should have learnt to respect by now when Japan talks about its science and technology plans. Even in the particular areas where Japan has concentrated, such as physics, I found it quite impossible last week to persuade the Science and Engineering Research Council physicists at Daresbury that total Japanese funding for basic science was smaller than ours as a proportion of national product. They did not believe it. Certainly it will not remain so for long.
What, then, are we to do? Are we to wring our hands, pathetically deploring the fact that British industry is backward in research and development, without noticing that Britain is the only industrial country without serious fiscal incentives to increase research and development? Should we cut our basic science, just when the links between basic science and its industrial application are becoming closer than ever?
The Minister will have read in The Times the account of the extraordinary meeting last week of the American Physical Society at which a flood of discoveries were announced relating to materials that remain superconductive at temperatures that are far and above absolute zero, challenging established theories and promising to transform both electronics and power engineering. The Minister will also have read today in The Times that the funding requests of just two of the British groups that are working in this area will exhaust the very limited funds that the Science and Engineering Research Council has been able to reserve for new work of commanding promise.
The Times may be trying to buy its way back to respectability by its new-found science and technology coverage and its advocacy of a serious national strategy for research and development. But it is accurate coverage and sound policy, and I, for one, would say good luck to it. The rest of the media will catch on soon enough.
It was because of the sheer frustration of the scientific community with the bigotry, barbarism and blindness of the Government's neglect of science and technology that Nature, the leading international weekly journal of science, has taken the unprecedented step of asking me to outline Labour party policy on science at a specially convened


forum that it is arranging on Thursday. Apart from the Government, there is a general consensus in Britain on the need for increased support for research and development. Labour policies are a part of that consensus. What I say will be as much a manifesto for science as a manifesto for Labour. There will be nothing particularly partisan in it. What I find extraordinary is that the Government exclude themselves from that consensus. That could be one of the factors that expose the hollowness of the Government's claims to a further term of office.
Lest the Minister chides me with not having thought about or dealt with the economic problem of finding the resources that must be invested in research and development, let me deal specifically with aspects of the research council's work which bear directly on this matter. Since 1971 the Economic and Social Research Council has been funding a research programme which I founded at that time with Lord Peston and Professor John Westcott, who is now a fellow of the Royal Society, on the use of policy optimisation on national economy models. The computer programmes that were produced by that team—which is still at work—are now used on all the main national economy models, including that in the Treasury. It provides the analysis needed to pursue a balanced combination of intermediate targets such as exchange rate stabilisation and final targets, such as stable prices and low unemployment. With help from the Treasury, the ITEM club and the team at Imperial college, I now have those programmes running on a souped-up micro computer on my desk. Incidentally, they are running faster than they do on the Treasury and Imperial college mainframes. If any Minister or official would like to bring along their data I shall be glad to work out with them how the modest increased resources needed for science and technology can be found and what the benefits would have to be from finding them.
Secondly, to go into the economic effects of technological change requires linking micro-economic and macro-economic analysis, setting the firm in the context of its industry and the economy generally. A consortium of the Treasury. the Bank of England and the Economic and Social Research Council is now seeking applications for developing the necessary system. The resources needed are modest, but the work that can be done is limited without the Government updating their rapidly degenerating statistical and management machine, which they have been deliberately dismantling. The rottenness of the Government's management goes deep.
Thirdly, the Government have received an important report from their own Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development on exploitable areas of science, which was prepared under the chairmanship of Dr. Charles Reece, the research director of ICI. This report reached what is for Britain the revolutionary conclusion that research can be organised to deliver an economic return. Instead of funding the necessary further and continuing study, the Government are relying on industry to fund that work. Of course, the money is not forthcoming. Why should industry work out for the Government how they should spend their research and development money when it has such strong proof that the Government are not taking a blind bit of notice of advice on science?
Fourthly, the Government will soon be looking for industry support for the research and development programme proposed by the IT86 committee in the crucial

field of information technology. They will look in vain. The Government have not put in the strategic thinking that is needed, nor are they prepared to put up the money that our industrial competitors overseas are providing. Instead, the Minister of State is leading a yah-boo gang going around Europe rubbishing the serious work that is needed in European collaboration in the framework programme in this and other important sectors of research.
On technical change itself, the Economic and Social Research Council has cut off what should be on or our primary think tanks in the Technical Change Centre. Part of the difficulty there is pressure on funding and part the absence of any shadow of interest by Ministers, who seem to believe that the market will provide and that they do not need to bother about the impact of technical change upon society. That is fundamentalism that puts religious believers quite to shame. The Technical Change Centre is well worth rescuing in a field in which we need all the help that we can get.
Far more is needed in an effective research and development strategy than adequate funding of the research councils. But without that, the strategy will lack a prime source of energy. The Government's present vandalism in cutting new research council funding not only misses the opportunity to rebuild our technological competitiveness, but threatens to destroy that most precious asset, our scientific tradition, which is seeking a warmer climate elsewhere.
I beg the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to think again before it is too late. Let the research councils carry on at their previously planned real-term research funding levels for 1987 to 1988 while wider plans are made for the future. It is on those plans that the wider technological competitiveness of Britain will be restored.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I find it intriguing that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) should speak specifically about the United States, and particularly about my old university of Stanford, and about Japan which are successful private enterprise eonomies. It is unfortunate that this important debate is occurring at this hour, but it may be regarded as significant.
I welcome to the debate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I regret that I did not hear his maiden speech yesterday, but I look forward to his intervention in this debate. Although I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, for whom we all have great respect he has drawn to the attention of the House a major problem—the manner in which we finance research, especially scientific research. I have often emphasised this problem before in the House, and I do so again.
In my period in the wilderness last year, I drew attention to the brain drain in an article in the Daily Mail. The current problem is that, although we have rightly increased university teachers' salaries at a cost of £167 million, there has been no corresponding increase in the research budget. There has been an increase, but not on that scale.
It is evident that the shortfall in the research budget must be met. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press this most vigorously upon the Chancellor of the


Exchequer and, indeed, upon the Prime Minister, who is, after all, a fellow of the Royal Society. I make no criticism whatever of Ministers, especially Ministers in the Department of Education and Science. They have made a genuine and enlightened attempt to resolve a very real problem. Perhaps unwittingly, all of us have created another problem, and that is the one that we have to resolve.
One of my key concerns is capital funding. I am worried about current funding but even more worried about capital funding. We have to ask ourselves a key question and we must ask it of the nation. Are we in the first division in science and technology and development—too often neglected—or are we not? If the answer is yes, we have to find the means to remain in that division. If we respond to that, we then must ask ourselves what other priorities have to be pushed aside. In the short term we must bridge the gap that has emerged.
We must have a strategic long-term policy. I hope that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, for whom I have great admiration and support, will not regard my remarks as being in any way unhelpful or critical. I fully appreciate the problems and priorities that he faces. I do not altogether denigrate or criticise his remarks, but obviously there has to be a balance. The Government's achievement in higher education is remarkable, but there is still a shortfall and an immediate problem that I hope my hon. Friend will do all that he can to meet. When we have resolved that, we can then solve the strategic problems.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I must start in this debate with a general look into research in this country, before turning to the specific problems of the research councils. Certain things stand out. One is that, while it is true that in this country some 50 per cent. of research spending goes on defence, in France it is only one third, in West Germany it is less than 10 per cent., and in Japan it is a minuscule 2·5 per cent.
It is sad to reflect on the difficulties that that great imbalance in the direction of research causes for us in this country, but there has also been a decline in our research compared with that of our neighbours. By 1989, according to The Independent newspaper, the national rate of Government spending on development and research will be down by a full 17 per cent. on six years earlier in real terms.
Of course, the Prime Minister promised to keep support for science research in line with inflation. Indeed, science research, running at about £600 million, has probably kept pace, broadly speaking, with real costs. At the same time, our competitors, the United States, Japan and France, have been increasing spending on those areas. We are the only major OECD country that, taking Government and industrial research and development spending together, has actually seen a decline in recent years in such spending.
In civil research we simply do not compare favourably. It is true that the Government have used as a defence the fact that the United States has, excluding defence, a civil research budget of about 1·5 per cent. of GNP—very similar to ourselves. But the nature of research in the United States is very different. In particular, the non-civil research is much more openly used later on for industrial

development and is much more freely created, rather than as it is here, under the rather tired and restrictive control of the Ministry of Defence.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) pointed out, the US National Science Foundation budget is set to double over the next five years. General research and development funding in the United States will be running far ahead of our own in terms of GNP. We still find that British research is underpaid, with the resulting and terrifying exodus of talent from this country. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) asked whether we would still be in the first division—and if we wanted to be in the first division—in research. The Independent said in a recent editorial:
One of the definitions of an underdeveloped country is that is exports its raw materials to more advanced nations. Britain's most precious raw material—the brainpower of her top scientists and engineers—is now being drained abroad, mainly to the United States … In all, about 1,000 British scientists and engineers settle permanently in the US each year, as many as from all other Western European countries put together.
The recent 24 per cent. pay increase is undoubtedly desirable, and a move in the right direction. No one denies that; indeed, it is a recognition of the problem we face. Sadly, it will be only partly effective, because it is still not adequate. Let us compare it with the rate in the United States. An academic researcher, fresh from his post doctorate degree, gets some $21,000 to $25,000. Here, even after the increase, the mean level is only £9,000 to £10,000. That is an enormous difference. As a result, it is becoming hard to recruit, particularly in electronics, associated with computers and information technology, and in biology, associated with biotechnology. It is simply hard to fill posts.
The settlement will also be ineffective because the problem is not only pay but security. Most researchers are employed by the research councils on temporary, short-term contracts. The problem concerns also facilities and continuity within research, and policy on research. Research councils employ some 13,000 staff, mostly on short-term contracts—a quarter of all those involved in research—and by their nature research council grants are restricted and uncertain.
Where do we stand? Funding is restricted and there is an exodus. One reason is pay, and I accept that the Government have recognised this and acted. The paradox of the present difficulties of research councils is that, while action is being taken on one problem—pay—the other side of the coin is made worse. Restrictions and uncertainties have increased because insufficient allowance has been made for pay.
The Association of University Teachers has estimated that 60 per cent. of research contracts come up for renewal in any one year, and that is causing fear because, as the freeze intensifies, research councils, often built up over many years, and in the case of the Science and Engineering Research Council, built up with difficulty into a large team, simply do not know whether they will be able to stay together either this year or in future years. Those problems are caused because the Government have agreed a pay rise of 20 per cent., with 16 per cent. this year, but only a 2·5 per cent. increase for the research councils to pay for it. That must be a devastating blow.
The SERC, by far the largest research council, leads the way in the problem, with a shortfall of £8 million. But that is not all. This year's SERC shortfall of £8 million will be


£10 million next year. On top of that, in the central non-university facilities provided by the SERC and generally staffed by civil servants, the problem will be taken further, because the Civil Service pay rise looks like being ahead of that 2·5 per cent.—about 4·5 per cent.—and that for scientists will be higher still, approaching 10 per cent. If that comes about, there will be an extra problem of finding a further £1 million to £1·5 million for the SERC. The research councils did not negotiate these increases, the Government did, but it is the research councils and their research that are being hit.
The Government have recognised the difficulties of the universities and have given extra money to cover the pay rises, but have neglected the research councils, and not just the SERC. The Medical Research Council has a shortfall of more than £4 million. The director of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund has described this as outrageous. The Agricultural and Food Research Council see a shortfall of £4 million. The National Environmental Research Council sees a shortfall of £500,000, and I could go on.
It would be easy enough for me, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South did, simply to attack the Government and the Secretary of State for deliberately running down research and of hiding behind the overall figures the fact that pay increases are being bought at the expense of continued research, and so exacerbating the tendency for scientists to look abroad to seek greater and more constructive support.
I believe strongly that there is room to make such criticism. The problems of the universities more generally are a testament to that. But this case, I believe that there is no delberate intention to neglect research. On the contrary, I believe that the Secretary of State is more sensible and realistic than to mortgage the nation's future by deliberately cutting research. Rather, I believe—it is a suspicion that I know is shared by other hon. Members—that it was a mistake, an oversight. I believe that the Government are having to cover their embarrassment at having forgotten that that pay rise would affect the research councils as well as the universities. That is the only explanation I can give for the different treatment that has been offered. I hope that the Government will not stand on their pride in this matter. I hope that they will admit that a mistake has been made and that when the University Grants Committee, was given the money to cover the new wage costs, finance——

Dr. Bray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in the first speech that I have heard him make in the House; I hope that it will be the first of many. I do not think that his charitable explanation could stand examination, because many people pointed out during the negotiations precisely what the effect would be upon the research councils and spelt out, million for million, the action required, which the Government totally failed to take.

Mr. Taylor: I can only hope that that is not true. I still feel—it is certainly the feeling that the AUT had when I spoke to its members earlier on—that it may well have been simply a misunderstanding, an oversight. If it was, we can hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will realise and acknowledge the mistake and take appropriate action. If that is not the case, it does not change the argument. That action must be taken to save the research base of Britain.
When the UGC was given the money to cover the new wage costs, the finance should have been given to the research councils as well for they are an essential plank, many would say the essential plank, in building the investment and the new ideas and technologies that Britain needs for the future. I draw attention to the alliance's yellow book, "The Time has Come" which spoke of the problems caused not only by pay but by
The frustration caused by arbitrary cuts in research funds.
We could have no better example of arbitrary cuts than the current freeze that has been forced on the research councils.
Arbitrary cuts are now being brought in with a vengeance. However, there is time to correct this. In a week when hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on tax cuts and on keeping down the price of drink and tobacco, the funds, perhaps £15 million, to at least keep research on an even keel, are clearly there. The Secretary of State for Education and Science and his colleagues should, at the very least, admit that oversight and make this small payment.

Mr. David Crouch: It is a pleasure to hear the new hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) make his second speech. I am sorry that I missed his maiden speech. He will know that the second speech and the third, fourth, fifth and all those after that will not be treated in the same generous way as his maiden speech was undoubtedly treated. However, I am pleased to hear him make a contribution to a scientific debate. The more hon. Members who take an interest in the science activity of Britain and theVote of money we put to it, the better.
I would give the hon. Gentleman only a word of warning, as one who has been here a long time. He sits in a place often occupied by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has spoken on many subjects— almost too many— and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that as a warning to be himself and not anyone else in his party, as I am sure he will.
I should declare my interest. As the House knows, I am a member of the Medical Research Council. I want to follow the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Truro about the funding of the academic pay rise that affects those who work in the research councils.
If I dare, I should like to quote from an article that I have spotted in the small hours of this morning in what I think that I am correct to call tomorrow's Financial Times, of 25 March. There is a long article by David Fishlock on the activities and work initiated by the Medical Research Council into AIDS research. The author refers to the AIDS research programme of £14·5 million over three years, which will not be affected by any changes that may be precipitated by the need to find more money to pay the new academic salaries that are required as a result of the Government's decision. He rightly states that that is a directed research programme.
It is rather novel in academic research to seek to programme research with a clear objective. That means channelling resources into the directions that show the most promise. Academics and researchers sometimes say that that is dangerous because one cannot always be sure what will show the most promise. I refer to that at this


stage too because I wish to quote a telling and important point made by David Fishlock, who wrote that the real task for our medical researchers is
whether they can define a strategic role for British science in a huge international effort.
That is a reference to the task facing medical researchers in the AIDS international research programme. The Medical Research Council, our universities and British research activity are faced with finding a solution to one of the major problems facing medical science today. Anything that diminishes activity in that area would be a tragedy. I have already said that any decision that must be made in the research councils, and especially in the Medical Research Council, must not diminish the research activity to which we are directing our attention for finding a cure and a vaccine for AIDS.
Today, the Medical Research Council is facing a new financial crisis, which is directly caused by the restructuring of non-clinical academic pay scales that came out earlier this month. As the hon. Member for Truro has said, the universities are to receive an additional 6 per cent. in 1987–88, rising to 10 per cent. in 1989–90 to meet those extra costs. In real terms, that represents an additional £40 million in 1987–88, £56 million in 1988–89 and an extra £71 million in 1989–90. That will provide average pay increases of 24 per cent., of which 16·6 per cent. will be backdated to December 1986 and 7·4 per cent. will be paid from 1 March 1988.
In a written answer, the Secretary of State said:
I welcome this settlement. It will reward excellence, enable substantially higher salaries to be paid to a minority of outstanding professors and help to counter the brain drain."—[Official Report, 5 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 672.]
That is an excellent decision, which is excellent news for all of us, and I commend and welcome it.
The Medical Research Council scientists, working in their own units, are paid on the university scale, as are the university staff who are paid from the Medical Research Council current grants. They are all involved in this academic pay award.
The cost to the MRC of this excellent decision is £6 million in the first year. The MRC has been allowed a cash limit for such pay increases of no more than 2·5 per cent. which provides £1·8 million towards that £6 million. Both the MRC and the universities must pay the increased academic salaries. Therefore, the MRC is short of £4·2 million for this year and has been able to provide only £1·8 million from the 2·5 per cent. cash limit. Next year, 1988–89, the MRC will have to find no less than £5·2 million in addition to meet the higher salary scales to be paid. The total for research councils may be more than £15 million and even as much as £20 million.
The Secretary of State provided an extra £40 million for the universities but nothing extra for the research councils. Did the Secretary of State nod? I cannot believe that it was intended to exclude the same people from this proper award which was made after considerable discussion. Nor can I believe that the Secretary of State meant to ask the research councils to reduce their research programmes to pay for these higher salaries.
The new salaries are necessary and long overdue. Last month, before the announcement, I protested at a research council meeting at the salary scales to be paid from 1 April. A professor's salary ranges from £19,010 to a maximum of £24,877. That is a ludicrous salary for someone with

experience in industry—and I am not talking about the big bang in the City. No wonder there is a brain drain and no wonder I welcomed the announcement a few weeks ago that the pay scales would be increased substantially. I would have liked to see them increased further, because we should keep our scientists at work in this country and equip them for their valuable work.
If the Secretary of State intends the research councils to find the money from their own resources, the MRC will have to reduce its scientific effort, not on AIDS, because that is sacrosanct and will go ahead, but on research, when everybody knows that we should be increasing expenditure. If the axe must fall, and I hope it will not in the MRC it will fall, not on existing programmes because we cannot do that, but on new project grants under the project grant mechanism.
I agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, who has received the same advice as I have from the M RC, that we in the MRC will be forced to stop all new project grants from this moment until July. From July onwards when we consider the period from October 1987 to October 1988, we shall have to reduce project grants unless we receive additional funds. Normally we would fund 500 such grants, but they will have to be reduced to fewer than 200—probably 190.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the term "new projects" is misleading, because many of those projects will involve current research teams entering new phases of work that require new funding? Therefore, current projects in progress may indeed be affected.

Mr. Crouch: Yes, to a certain extent I agree that that is true.
The Medical Research Council will not cut work in its own units or existing programme grants, but it will be forced to cut future project grants, as I have said. That will mean that new work in the universities and medical schools which we are looking forward to will very largely cease if we cannot get the Government to recognise the seriousness of the position.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers appreciate the position. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today met the secretaries of the research councils. I know that they have not withheld their thoughts about the problems and that they have explained the difficulties. I hope that this debate will help to overcome this difficulty—which we hope will be only temporary—and that extra funding will come from the Treasury so that our research will not be impeded as I have suggested.

Mr. Steve Norris: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in congratulating the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on bringing forward this important debate. I have agreed with many of the comments that I have heard tonight. The debate is obviously as vital to my constituents in Oxford as it is to the constituents represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I agreed with much that my hon. Friend said.
I want to preface my remarks with an observation that follows on from a remark made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) about the impact of the brain drain.


In comparing salaries in this country with those in the United States, the hon. Gentleman did not perhaps do himself as much justice with his point as he could have. If he had made that comparison, he would have had to take into account the most invidious comparison of all with regard to the brain drain, which is that until the Chancellor's recent move in this budget the top rate of tax in the United States was one percentage point lower than the basic rate of tax in the United Kingdom. If anything will make potential high earners leave these shores for a more advantageous climate, it is our tax regime.
While that may apply to many in business, in the City and, I confess, would be a major consideration for me, it is the unanimous decision of the research scientists whom I have met at Oxford— to this extent I shall improve upon the point made by the hon. Member for Truro, if he will forgive me— that the continuity of funding of projects is more important than salaries. I shall consider pay in a moment, because it is obviously important, but they are vitally concerned to ensure that there is continuity of funding and that there is the ability to take on young researchers to continue programmes or to develop new programmes and avoid the uncertainty that has, regrettably, become attendant upon recent projects or new project initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the research councils and the general university research grants.
There is a point to be made about the brain drain, but ironically it does not refer to pay, nor is it, in this context, a point about tax. It concerns the fact that scientists at this level are infinitely more concerned about their work, and the continuity, integrity and continuation of that work. I am not critical of the Government's record. Spending on research has risen from about £700 million in 1978–79 to about £1·2 billion this year. Those figures are commonly accepted and show a real terms increase above the rate of inflation of about 6 per cent. The £40 million award this year will represent spending about 3 per cent. above inflation. I welcome that.
I also want to consider the three major areas of anxiety which none the less continue to exist. I refer to the funding of the pay award, the effect of cost inflation other than wages on research programmes and our industrial research and development policy.
I shall not repeat what has already been said about pay, but it is clear that the £15 million in 1978–79 and the £19 million in 1988–89 by which pay awards exceed the allocation to the research councils, even taking account of the 2·5 per cent. that is built into their new awards, have to be found by curtailing existing projects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury graphically illustrated with regard to the Medical Research Council, that will have a serious effect on the initiation of new projects. The hon. Member for Truro made a fair point in his intervention in my hon. Friend's speech, that new projects, and the continuity of some existing ones, will be affected.
If that is the case, and if there is a prospect of our losing about 500 to 600 research grants in 1987–88, irrespective of whether one accepts the extraordinarily generous explanation advanced by the hon. Member for Truro, or the somewhat more cynical one, to which I found myself innately more sympathetic, that was advanced by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, the Government have to take on board the urgent need to remedy the deficit.
I am sure that it was in the minds of those who made this decision that it is right to impose some financial discipline on research councils, but that is not realistic for next year and at such short notice.
As for cost inflation, it is no good arguing that conventional rates of inflation apply to this specialised area in which it is quite clear that prices are rising at a quite different rate. I understand that it is estimated that there will be a reduction of up to 10 per cent. between 1980 and 1990 in the volume of of science that research councils will be able to sustain if we do not take account of the faster rate of inflation for scientific equipment.
I have seen some of the answers proposed by the Science and Engineering Research Council, such as taking international subscriptions and superannuation costs out of the equation, but they are wholly artificial and conspire only to confuse the general principle, which is that. different inflation rates apply to different areas of expenditure.
That occurs with regard to social services benefits. It means that if we do not fund adequately for inflation, we force organisations to cut their base level expenditure. Of course we must look for improved efficiency, but that cannot provide the whole answer.
In terms of industrial research and development, which must be a complement to Government-financed research, I have felt that we British suffered from that appalling malaise which can be summed up by saying that when we were making money we did not invest because it was not necessary, and that when we were losing money we did not invest because the money was not there to invest.
That dreadful indifference by management in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s— I am not making a political observation; I am sure the majority of those managers would have been loyal supporters of my party—led to a condition in which British industry found it hard to accept a regular intellectual commitment to long-term research funding. As a result they have been falling behind their European and other OECD partners in the contribution that they make.
It is vital for us to give industry a longer view so that it can recognise the value of long-term investment in research and development. Possibly that could be done by the specific tax incentives for investment to which the hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred. Possibly it would be done by considering the implications for competitions policy which were raised in the BTR-Pilkington case.
In that case, one consideration was that if a company was to project long-term research commitments without any short-term pay-off it would reduce its short-term profitability and thus its attraction to investors in the short-term, despite the fact that such research might be vital to the achievement of a technical lead in an industry from the point of view of jobs, and the economy in general, in decades to come. This may mean our looking at the implications of a low tax regime to give industry the opportunity to fund investment, for without post-tax profits there can be no investment by companies in research.
The Government have done much to overcome the second industrial revolution. The first took people from the land into the factories, and the second has taken people from the factories out into the light again. If we are to keep them there, we must honour our commitment to become providers of large numbers of highly technical and skilled


jobs, and to do that we must have a dynamic and thriving research programme in the universities and research councils.
I am pleased that the Sussex university study for ABRC showed that we spent a higher proportion of our GDP than did the United States and Japan on Government-funded academic research. That point is not stressed frequently enough, although the hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to it. Given that greater degree of expenditure by us over some of our advanced industrial colleagues, it is clear that we cannot afford to be complacent. We in this country have the brains and skills, and we have a facility for innovation that is acknowledged to be the best in the world. With those talents, it is clear that we must, for the sake of our future as an advanced industrial nation, as much as for the intrinsic value of the research that is being conducted in universities and research councils, protect and nurture them and give them the kind of future in which we will see British science and ingenuity flourish for the benefit of us all.

Mr. Alan Howarth: It is a pleasure to speak following the thoughtful and genial speeches that have been made in the debate. The House listened with respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), whose knowledge and concern for the well-being of science is widely recognised. He was not however above a few of those yah-boo touches that he discerned and deprecated in others. The air has been thick with polemic and rhodomantade and special pleading, and it was a pity that we had to suffer some further thickening of it with a few party political touches. All the same, one understands why the hon. Member for Motherwell, South felt it necessary to make those points in the way he did. We should take a cool look at the facts and a cool look at where responsibilities may properly lie. The research community itself should approve of that approach.
I think that we would all agree that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that there is an adequate programme of basic research. My hon. Friend the Minister appreciates that point and, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has been attending to this necessity. The science budget which, through the research councils, funds the best projects, has increased by 12 per cent. more than the general rate of inflation since 1979–80. I understand that the Government intend to maintain the value of the science budget in real terms.
In the autumn statement the Government added an extra £95 million to science spending. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred a little disparagingly to a giveaway Budget. With the close interest that he always takes in public finances, he knows very well that the autumn statement and the spring Budget should be taken together. In fairness, he should recognise that, as part of the overall package, the Government have rightly decided to make an appreciable increase in their funding for science— a 3 per cent. real terms increase between 1986–87 and 1987–88.
The Advisory Board for the Research Councils says that an extra 10 per cent. is needed to take account of the sophistication factor— the tendency of the price of scientific equipment and materials to increase faster than

the general rate of inflation. We accept that the sophistication factor is a reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) recognised that point rather generously, but he distinguished, rightly, between those costs that inevitably rise faster than general costs and the other costs that science has to face—of restructuring, superannuation and the hazards of the foreign exchange markets. They are common to all enterprises. It is a little specious for those who argue the case for science to brush them aside. It is a "sophistication", in a worse sense of the word, to postulate the possibility of "buying science" separately from the general cost of living. After all, the Government have to take account of general inflation. If they fail to do so in their economic policies, the environment in which science exists will deteriorate to the detriment of science.

Mr. Norris: I should like to confirm that, like my hon. Friend, I do not blame the Government in any way for having to come to terms with, for example, the impact of the exchanges in relation to external contributions. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, faced with the unfortunate reality of the impact of the exchanges on the Budget, it is desirable that at least some way be found to anaesthetise the majority of research rather than let it be affected by a factor that is truly outside the control of those involved in that research.

Mr. Howarth: It is much to be wished that we could all be anaesthetised from adverse economic conditions. There is a dilemma. These extra costs are realities to science budgets and at the same time are realities to the Government who have a responsibility to maintain sound finance. The two imperatives drive in opposite directions, and the Government have to make an uncomfortable decision between them.
We should put pay a little more into perspective. The Science and Engineering Research Council has reacted angrily and publicly to its predicament. It has announced that it is cancelling round three of the current session as a general grants round. In the press release in which that dramatic statement was made, there was a footnote for editors pointing out that each year the SERC awards about £100 million in research grants, but the press release did not mention that the SERC's overall budget is £350 million. The £8 million shortfall was effectively presented as an 8 per cent. shortfall when, in fact, in proportion to the overall SERC budget, it was a significantly smaller figure.
I understand that the total extra pay bill for the research councils in 1987–88 will be £15 million above their budget. That budget is £660 million. A shortfall of £15 million on £660 million budget is an awkward reality, but it should be kept in perspective. It was known that pay negotiations were taking place and it may have been prudent to keep some greater margin available, notwithstanding all the difficulties. It is awkward, but I doubt that it should be presented as a catastrophe.

Dr. Bray: A margin had been kept and that margin was the maximum amount that was allowed by the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I will not dispute that point.
We should keep this issue in a slightly better perspective than the angry and passionate pleading of the research


councils—although understandable—has allowed. It is frustrating for brilliant scientists in a mediocre economy— a rapidly improving economy, but one that is still inferior to those of competitor countries and at a time when there is a rapid increase in exciting areas of research that beckon and require attention, to be short of funds. However, we ought to be calm about these circumstances.

Mr. Crouch: It is not a question of the research councils being frustrated, but rather that the Government have the symmetry wrong between the university pay awards and the pay for those who work in units, in universities on 'research council work.
The letter that I received from the Secretary of State on 5 March on university academic pay stated:
Today the Government accepted the proposals for the pay of academic and related staff put forward by the universities.
The Secretary of State accepted the proposal put forward by the universities, but there are those who work in the universities and who are university research granted who will not get the pay award. It is a question of a lack of symmetry not one of frustration.

Mr. Howarth: No doubt the Minister will touch on that when he replies.
There is no question of the Government being indifferent to the well being of science. I am glad that two hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken have drawn attention to the Sussex university study. The study terminated in 1982, but it showed that the Government were spending a larger proportion of gross domestic product on science than the Governments of Japan or the United States. That is a remarkable fact that will take many people by suprise and, as has been already said, it deserves to be better known.
The Government have rightly insisted on trying to ensure that there is good management in science and that there is a concentration of resources where they can be most valuably used. We cannot undertake every scientific research project that takes our fancy. We must consider what to do and we must set about doing it well. That is in the interests not just of economy, but of quality. The Government have laid stress on selectivity and on the development of centres of excellence. Inevitably when the Government adopt such a policy those who are not beneficiaries of the policy will be those whose voices we hear. It is commonplace in politics that those who do well out of public expenditure allocations.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose——

Mr. Howarth: if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not give way as I have only a few minutes left.
Those who do well tend to omit to say so while those who consider that they have lost out are voluble.
The people whom I meet in the academic world know very well that the Government's emphasis on quality, building on strength and selectivity is correct. It was interesting to note a letter published in The Times on 23 January from Mr. Crossland of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers who spoke of the problems, but certainly the problems were compounded by the excessive numbers of engineering faculties in the institutions of higher education. There are some 80; it is impossible to equip 80 faculties, and in his view there should be about 20.
The Government have a responsibility for basic research, but the costs of that can be almost infinite. We

have seen that problem presenting itself with CERN, for example. There are other claims. too. The Government are having to allocate between competing claims on the public purse. There are eminently justifiable claims from the National Health Service, for example, which science exists to serve, in part. There are claims made by those who have responsibilities for the education budget. We know that the education service makes science possible at a more advanced level in our academic world. The Government have been right to lay emphasis on promoting science in our schools. They have introduced education support grants at primary level and have been criticised for so doing. That move has been described as centralisation, but if they were not actively taking steps to promote science they would be criticised. There have been extra grants for teacher training in science, TVEI, and provision has been made for computers and software programmes. There has also been the information technology initiative and the engineering and technical programme. There has been a host of other initiatives.
There are limits on what the Government can spend if they are not to wreck everything. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South seemed rather inconsistent in his remarks. He said that the American model of enlarging the public sector deficit as if there were no tomorrow was not one that we could afford to follow. Yet he said that it was terrible that the Government were not spending the money that, in his opinion, they should.
Time does not allow me to talk about the role of industry, but undoubtedly there is an important one for it to play, and the Government have been right to promote it. The Government's policy is to strengthen industry and facilitate the support that it cart give to science, and that is highly relevant. I am sure we all agree there is much more that industry could do, but as we are running short of time I will make way for my hon. Friend the Minister to allow him to reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): Vandalism, the yah-boo gang, rottenness, bigotry and barbarism are words and terms of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). They echo exceptionally hollowly at 2 o'clock in the morning, though they would at any time. That somewhat unscientific terminology corroded the more serious parts of his argument, especially at a time when we need some perspective in dealing with the scientific debate. Therefore, I am grateful to other hon. Members for the tone of their contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge ( Mr. Rhodes James) made a brief, wise and thoughtful contribution to the debate, which was just the job at this time in the morning. I join those who have welcomed the new hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) to the Chamber. I am glad that he chose science as the subject for his second contribution to our debates, but my mind wandered slightly when he talked about the yellow book and I thought of Aubrey Beardsley, who used to draw in a series of disconnected dots. I am sure that that is not a source of inspiration for alliance policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury ( Mr. Crouch) has kindly graced the Chamber with his presence. We know that he brings specialised knowledge to our debates, especially about the Medical Research Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr.


Norris) has been as assiduous as ever in the interests of his constituents in science as in other issues. I was most interested in his remarks. Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Straford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) put matters in a rather wider perspective and helped us all by the soothing influence of his rational intellect.
As I have said, we are greatly in need of some perspective in the debate, so I shall make one or two remarks in that direction. The debate is about the funding of the research councils, and the Government have increased the science budget through which the councils are funded every year since they have been in office from £340 million in 1979–80 to £657 million in 1987–88. That is an increase in real terms of 12 per cent. These are not the actions of a Government who do not value science.
For the universities, the expenditure plans announced last November allowed for a cash increase in universities' recurrent grant of £95 million, or 7 per cent. Subsequently, the Government have announced that they will provide additional funds of £40 million in 1987–88 and, conditionally, £56 million in 1988–89 and £71 million in 1989–90 to help meet the costs of the recently announced pay settlement for university staff. This pay settlement, which amounts to 24 per cent., has wide and deep importance. The deal will give employers greater flexibility over pay. They will be able to take more account of quality of performance, special responsibilities, possession of scarce skills and difficulties of recruitment and retention in particular subjects. Our whole research effort will be strengthened through the ability to attract and retain good quality staff across a range of disciplines. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury was right to recognise the significance of the deal.
The university pay settlement will have an effect on the research councils, because their research grants to universities support a number of short-term research staff on university salary scales. But the problem must not be exaggerated. The extra cost to the research councils in 1987–88 is some £15 million out of a total budget of £657 million. To represent that as has been done outside the Chamber, but, mercifully, not here tonight, as if it will bring about the immediate collapse of British science, is absurdly to dramatise. Let me remind hon. Members that the Government will be still investing £1,300 million in the science base in 1987–88.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose——

Mr. Walden: I shall not give way. I must plough on.
Having said that, the Government recognise that they do need to consider, with the research councils, the implication of absorbing this cost within their budgets. The head of the largest council— the Science and Engineering Research Council— met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself last Friday. Earlier today, we met all five heads of the research councils together so that we could further our understanding of the problems they face. The Government have taken note of what the heads of the research councils have had to say, and we shall consider most carefully.
The overriding problem that we all have to recognise is that the rapid growth of science and technology is producing many new opportunities for research at a time when the costs of undertaking that research are increasing.

No country—even the wealthiest—can afford to cover the field. Increasingly, all countries are having to opt for a more selective approach in their support of research. During a recent visit to the United States, I was struck to discover that they were most interested in the work that had been done here by the University Grants Committee, the Economic and Social Research Council, and Sussex university on the assessment of the value of research. They, like us, even with a larger budget, have to pay increasing attention to priorities.
With that background, the Government have a clear and stated policy for science. Our objective is to maintain and enhance our support of the science base, to strengthen the knowledge and skills of the United Kingdom in science and technology, and to contribute to improving the competitiveness of our economy. To this end we want to get the best value out of the substantial funds available by selecting the areas to invest in, and concentrating the funds on outstanding research groups. We also want to see closer and better working relations between the science base and industry and commerce.
We also want to see more funding from private sector sources. We want to improve management, get better value for money, and to promote increased flexibility, enabling faster responses to new scientific opportunities.
I am happy tonight to have the chance to acknowledge and commend the positive and constructive way in which the scientific community has responded. Significant progress has been made on each objective—for example, the new UGC policy on selectivity, the rationalisation of sites by the research councils, the steadily growing collaboration between universities and industry, with external funding from industry rising in real terms by over 70 per cent. between 1981–82 and 1984–85, an expansion of research council contracts with the private sector, a sharpening formulation of council priorities as a basis for their published corporate plans, and new initiatives in important subject areas such as molecular medicine, optoelectronics and food science.
I make it clear at this point that, in emphasising the need to harness the science base more to promote wealth creation, the Government do not question the value of scientific inquiry for its own sake.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon stressed the importance of what the Government are doing for education. Only by having a strategy for science in schools is one able to ensure the continued excellence of British science.
There have been two major elements in this debate—the brain drain and the relationship between science and industry. As for the brain drain, it is important to remember that we are dealing not with a new problem but, with a long-standing one. It is easy to deplore the symptoms but the Government are trying to tackle the root causes. It is time that we were a trifle more honest with ourselves about what some of our scientists are going to, as well as about what the press tells us they are allegedly fleeing from.
Our scientists are going to a country that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East pointed out, has a very low tax rate, with 28 per cent. as the top rate. Yet we hear squeals of indignation from the Opposition when any move is made by the Government to reduce our extremely high taxation rate. They are going to a country where there are very close links between business and science, yet when this Government's Green Paper pointed to the need for


greater economic awareness in higher education, we were told that we are a Government of philistine materialism. They are going to a country that does not spend one sixth of its higher education funds on the most generous system of student grants in the Western world. They are going to a country where the pay and promotion arrangements are far more flexible than they are in this country. That is why we are glad about the new deal between the vice-chancellors and the Association of University Teachers.
The reforms that this Government are encouraging in higher education and science will make life more attractive, in the longer term, for science in this country. Therefore I was surprised that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South did not allude to that progress.
Industry is at the heart of the problem. Sir George Porter recognised that in a recent speech, in which he drew attention to the fact that our industrial research and development is by no means impressive. He said:
Here we cannot blame the government because British firms received a much higher proportion of their R and D funds from the Government—30 per cent. here compared with 16 per cent. in Germany and 2 per cent. in Japan.
Sir George Porter has been known to voice a few criticisms of the Government's policy, but in that statement he displayed great seriousness and even-handedness.
What are we to do about it? It is easy to lament this major cultural shortcoming in Britain, but one must have a policy to deal with it. We are trying to change the whole climate of higher education and, to some extent, of science to make it more attractive to industrial investors. That is in the process of becoming a major achievement of this Government—and of higher education and science. We are also building incentives into our pattern of research funding, whether by means of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, or— more significantly, perhaps— by means of the University Grants Committee, to attract more industrial funding by linking it with UGC funding. Then there is the new Link

programme— a very significant development. Its objective is made clear by its name. The sum of £210 million is to be channelled in such a way as to attract the maximum amount of funding from industry. The model for that development is the very successful Alvey programme.
The latest DTI figures for the industrial funding of research and development show an improvement of 5 per cent. between 1983 and 1985. Given the increased profitability of British firms, I hope that they will take advantage of the new opportunities that are being provided by higher education and by science.
I am afraid, although this is not an occasion for party polemics, that I must draw the attention of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South to one or two facts. First, it is a matter of historical record, which should be noted, that the science budget declined between 1974 and 1979. Significantly, the biggest decline was in 1976, which was the year of the IMF. It seems that that puts the hon. Gentleman's remarks in slightly different perspective. I hope that when he talks to "Nature" he will ask its editor, Mr. John Maddox, what he meant by the phrase in his article in The Sunday Times that
Morale had already slumped 10 years ago, before this Government was elected.
It is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman not to mention the realities of the situation of which all the scientists whom I meet and talk to are aware— the need for greater concentration of effort and more dynamic promotion structures, which we have achieved in the recent pay deal in the universities. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman not to congratulate the sector of higher education and our scientists on the progress that they are making in highly necessary reforms.
In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]— the Debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Central America

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I wish to raise an important matter in tonight's Consolidated Fund debate— British Government policy towards Central America.
The matter has been raised in previous debates in the House, but it needs to be raised again because of the disturbing reports that have been received recently of British Government and British commercial complicity in the illegal sale of arms to the Contras in Nicaragua and all the horror that the sale of those arms causes.
Before turning to that matter, I want to raise some other issues of policy towards the region. What is unclear to me, and I am sure to many other people, is exactly what the British Government's policy is towards Central America. I say that with some feeling because I have examined, for example, the British Government's voting record at the United Nations since 1982. There have been 23 votes on the subjects of Central America at the United Nations since 1982. On 10 occasions the British Government have abstained. On five occasions there was no vote or unanimous decision. On five occasions they supported resolutions condemning violations of human rights in Guatemala and twice in the case of human rights in E1 Salvador.
On 17 December 1985, General Assembly resolution No. 40/188 regretted the imposition of a trade embargo on Nicaragua by the United States. It is a matter of great shame that that was adopted by 91 votes to 6, with 49 abstentions, one of which was, predictably, the United Kingdom.
On 31 July 1986 the Security Council draft resolution on compliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice, on the legality, or rather the illegality, of American policy against Nicaragua was vetoed by the United States and the British Government showed true mettle on that occasion and abstained. Once again the British Government abstained on 28 October 1986 on the Security Council draft resolution on compliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice.
One must ask: do we have a British Government policy in relation to central America, or do we have a policy which does little more than mirror whatever the American Administration want to be done? On occasions Ministers have told us that there is an independent policy. On other occasions they have told us that they suppport the Contadora policy, and on other occasions again they have said that they support the European initiatives on Central America, which, it is true, bear some resemblance to Contadora policy, but nevertheless the record of the British Government at the United Nations is not one of which they can be proud. All that they have done is to support American policy in that region.
We do not know exactly what voting goes on in the financial institutions of the world, because many such details are not published, but we have a fairly good idea that British Government policy in respect of trade credits and aid for Nicaragua is in line with the political objectives of the United States Administration.
There has been a sharp and significant fall in Government bilateral aid to Nicaragua since 1979, and there has been an increase in aid to Honduras and E1 Salvador. I believe that now there has been a resumption

of aid to Guatemala. There has been considerable non-governmental aid to Nicaragua, some of which has been match funded by the British Government.
To have some idea of the problems in the region, it is essential for the House to have at least some knowledge of the problems faced by the area as a whole. The countries of the region— Costa Rica, E1 Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua—have a number of features in common. First, they are all fairly poor and, in the case of Honduras, extremely poor. Nicaragua is poor, but is trying to improve itself.
Ther economies of those countries rely heavily on agriculture and all the countries have similar experiences of high levels of infant mortality and low life expectation. A recent publication by the Catholic Institute for International Relations summarises statistics for the region and shows that in 1985 life expectancy was high in Costa Rica, at 73·1, which is more or less a European figure, and low in Guatemala, at 59. Those are official figures, but they need to be fairly closely examined and treated with some scepticism, because I think that they often understate the degree of social deprivation that exists throughout the region.
Economically, the region suffers greatly from having economies based on agriculture. They rely on world commodity prices, over which national economies have very little control. It is important to understand something of the history of the region. It gained its independence from Spain in the early 19th century and a series of republics were set up, all of which have had consistently weak Governments, and all of which have economies increasingly dominated by foreign-owned multinational companies. This has led to great rural poverty and to distortions of the economy. It has also led to enormous political influence by largely foreign-owned multinational companies. In turn, this has led to a degree of landlessness among the peasants and, quite understandably, this has led to enormous peasant protests.
There are several ways of examining the history of Central America. One is by way of a series of governmental changes, and another is by way of the onward determination of largely landless people to achieve some social justice. The process now going on in Central America must be viewed in its historical perspective.
I have visited the region on a number of occasions. In E1 Salvador there is a town that has no seats in the central square. That is unusual for a Spanish colonial-type town, and when I asked why there were no seats I was told that the square was the burial ground of 30,000 peasants who were murdered by the E1 Salvador army in 1932 as a result of the peasant uprising of that time led by Farabundo Marti. That is now the name of the liberation movement in E1 Salvador. Similar experiences are recorded throughout Nicaragua, where in the same period of the 1930s Augusto Sandino led a series of peasant movements.
It is against that sort of background that one has to look at the regional conflict and at the problems as a whole. My understanding of the region is that a large number of socially small people are determined to improve themselves, and that the main obstacle to their improvement is the domination of the region in the past by largely foreign-owned multinational companies and the absolute determination of successive United States Administrations to have a stranglehold on the politics and the economies of the region.
United States troops have been frequently in that region, and there are endless stories of the atrocities that have been committed by them in various peasant wars during this century. Recent conflicts have a very strong historical basis. It is awful to report that since 1978— only nine years ago—150,000 people have been killed in the civil wars in a region whose population is less than one-third that of the United Kingdom. That is why it is important that the House debates the region and understands British Government policy.
We are aware of the low level of trade between Britain and the countries of that region. There are serious questions as to British Government policy towards the region. We know their United Nations voting record, and their trade and aid policy towards Central America, but we need to know where they stand on the civil wars there.
Do they actually recognise the right of the Nicaraguan Government to their own self-determination and to decide their own future, or are they on the side of the Contras and the United States in their flat-out determination to destroy that Government? Do the British Government recognise the social process that is going on in E1 Salvador, or are they entirely on the side of the E1 Salvador army and all the horrors and atrocities that go with that? The House is entitled to know that.
There are many other issues in that region that I could mention, and I should like to go through some of them. The countries of that region, whilst treated to some extent separately in policy formation, actually hang together strongly. The key to much of American policy towards the region is its policy towards Honduras as a whole. Honduras is very much under military occupation. Anyone who has visited it will be struck by the appalling poverty of many of the peasant people and by the enormous American military presence. At any one time since 1983 there have been over 20,000 United States ground troops within Honduras.
The next exercise planned for Honduras—they have lost count of the number of Big Pine exercises and they refer to the exercises as Big Pine and nothing else—will see 50,000 United States ground troops there next summer. I quote from the Central American Historical Institute update on Honduras of 12 December 1986, which gives the flavour of the problems that the people of Honduras are suffering:
Honduras has long been the second poorest country in the hemisphere, after Haiti. Since 1982 almost continuous U.S.-Honduran joint military maneuvers and extensive U.S. military aid have contributed to the militarization of Honduran society. In the last four years the United States has provided over $289 million in direct military aid, and over $170 million in military construction under the umbrella of the maneuvers. Proposed military assistance for 1987 includes $50 million in construction and as much as $89 million in direct aid and $90 million in Economic Support Funds. In addition, Honduras received 10 Bell-450 helicopters in September and is currently negotiating the purchase of Kfir jet-fighters with Israel.
To give a contrast to what is happening there, I quote Victor Inocencio Peralta, head of the 100,000 member National Peasants Union, who said of the Contra presence:
Our members don't want to take any more chances of cultivating their land and then having to abandon it because of the constant abuses carried out by the contras.
On the one hand massive American aid is flowing into the country, and on the other a large number of illegal forces are determined to destroy the forces of the neighbouring

country of Nicaragua and to throw Honduran peasants off their land and occupy it. I have further information in front of me from the Central American Historical Institute which gives some idea of the militarisation of Honduras. This makes strange reading when one considers it against the many statements made by the United States Administration and, on some occasions, by the British Government about the alleged dangers to security in the region of the size of the Nicaraguan army.
As I have said, the Honduras air force is extremely well equipped. Now, it has expanded even more with 12 super-Mystere jet fighters from Israel, which will mean that
Honduras has had a more powerful air force than any of its neighbours in Central America. The Super-Mysteres are suitable for offensive raids, and were used as recently as last December 7 in attacks on the towns of Wiwili and Murra in northern Nicaragua.
There is now a massive base in Honduras that is being used to attack neighbouring countries. The Contras are using it as a base to attack Nicaragua, and the American forces are providing a base from which the E1 Salvadorean army can make bombing raids. If ever there was a case of the region being destabilised, it is through the policy towards Honduras, which makes it a military base, rather as Thailand was used as a military base throughout the Vietnam conflict during the 1960s.
In the case of E1 Salvador, the Government's policy has more published information about it for a number of reasons. A civil war has been raging there for some time, and the Duarte Government were installed by elections that many people, and many observers, believed to be fraudulent. The British Government sent observers to those elections, but pronounced them to be satisfactory—a view not shared by many others. The same British Government refused to send official observers to the elections in Nicaragua, thus prejudging the situation in the region as a whole.
In the case of E1 Salvador, the amount of aid received not just from the United States but from other countries is considerable. Military aid from the United States has gone up from the 1980 level of $50 million to the 1986 level of $131 million. Economic aid has also increased, and some supplementary aid has been given. We are told that in E1 Salvador this is matched by a general improvement in the civil and human rights position. We are told not that there is an absolute improvement, but that there has been a comparative improvement.
The history of E1 Salvador over the past seven years shows that while the civil war has been going on, illegal death squads have been operating in parts of the country. Thousands of people have been taken away in the middle of the night, and their bodies have been found in shallow graves in the morning. This did not stop in the year that Duarte was elected, and it has not stopped now. While the figures for illegal killings are lower than they have been over the past years, they have not finished altogether. In 1986, 1,821 people were killed, 1,000 were captured and 230 disappeared.
This is something that is well documented by many people. I shall not quote sources such as the FMLN and others, but Senator John F. Kerry, writing in "E1 Salvador Update: Counter Terrorism in Action", which is based on the findings of a research team in E1 Salvador in 1986, investigating United States assistance to the E1 Salvadorean police. He said:
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I have repeatedly voiced my concerns that aid to foreign


police forces cannot have a positive impact in unstable countries like E1 Salvador and Guatemala, where there is no functioning judicial system and law enforcement is essentially under military control. I agree with the conclusion of the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus that 'For the future, U.S. police aid programs must be limited to police units under civilian control and linked to concrete progress in the establishement of a functioning judicial system; only such a system can hold both police and military forces accountable to it, and ultimately strengthen the rule of law in Central America.'
The report goes on to chronicle those in detail. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary has received a copy of that report. If not, I would be only too happy to send him one.
I asked about E1 Salvador not just to chronicle the horrors of what life there is like for ordinary people. I have witnessed some of those horrors, such as the shanty towns in which people live, the heartbreak of disappearances, and the bravery of people who are organising human rights groups, such as the Committee of the Mothers of the Disappeared or the various trade unions activists and the horrors through which they have gone. In addition to that, there were the effects of the earthquake last year and the undoubted corruption in the distribution of aid that was given to E1 Salvador to deal with that earthquake.
In the midst of all that, the British Government say that the human rights position in E1 Salvador is improving; yet there are several thousand known political prisoners in gaols, never mind those who have disappeared. In addition to offering bilateral aid to the E1 Salvadorean Government, the British Government are also undertaking the training of one E1 Salvadorean officer at the British military academy. The Minister told us on one occasion that that young man was here to learn the democratic ways of the British and to learn about parliamentary Government in this country. He might be a particularly remarkable young man who will learn a great deal while he is here, and go back and change the course of E1 Salvadorean history, but I very much doubt it. I suspect that that is the start of a potentially much bigger programme of military assistance to the Government of E1 Salvador and further training that may be offered in the future. It is a scandal of the highest order that the British Government should be prepared to offer training to that officer.
The question we have to ask is whether the British Government recognise that there are continuing and serious abuses of human rights in E1 Salvador. Do they recognise that trade union leaders have regularly been imprisoned and shot for going about their lawful business? Do they recognise that the human rights organisations are continually harassed and under pressure? Do they recognise that the illegal death squads are still in operation and that the best policy that the British Government could follow is not one of giving direct approval and assistance to the Government and the military, but to have some consideration for the human rights causes within that region.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the situation in E1 Salvador can best be improved by the United States using its power to try to strengthen the civilian administration, tame the military and secure human rights improvements, or by the civil war being fought to a painful finish?

Mr. Corbyn: Nobody wants the civil war fought to a painful finish. There was the possibility of talks on a number of occasions last year between the FMLN and the government and I would hope that those talks can be resumed. However, they are unlikely to be resumed in an atmosphere where the United States continues to pour in so much money that it backs up everything that the E1 Salvadorean military does and encourages it to continue the prosecution of the civil war to the bloodiest conclusion it can possibly reach.
Nicaragua is the country that gets most of the publicity within the region and it is the country that gets the odium of the United States Administration. Quite simply, anyone who has looked at the history of Nicaragua pre-1979, the horrors that the Somoza dictatorship caused for the ordinary people of the country and the thousands of people who died at the hands of the secret police, will realise that the Sandinista revolution of 1979 was about an open and democratic society, freedom of expression, and the right of those poor people to have access to health, education, housing and to some hope for their children. That is still what it is about. That is very much what it is about when one talks to some of the poorest people in Nicaragua. Despite all that they have gone through in the past seven years, the interesting thing is that support for the Sandinistas has not reduced or fallen away. They have not had opposition internally to their policies. They have had increased support because, basically, there is an understanding of what the Sandinista revolution is all about and what the Sandinistas are trying to achieve.
If one looked at any Third world country and said that in a period of seven years it had dramatically reduced illiteracy, increased employment, increased education and set up some sort of a health service, one would say that that was good. Indeed, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation gave the Nicaraguan Government a prize for their literacy programme. Those would have been tremendous achievements for any country, but to achieve them at the same time as having an economic embargo imposed on it by its former largest trading partner, the United States, and with the United States continuously and obsessively funding the Contras, guard in its determination to destroy everything that the Sandinista revolution has achieved, is even more tremendous.
The British Government's role throughout has been to reduce aid to Nicaragua, to issue the most blood-curdling statements about alleged denials of democracy in Nicaragua, and to refuse to understand the social process in Nicaragua.
Even now I urge the Minister to go to Nicaragua and visit any village on the Atlantic or the Pacific coast, on the borders with Honduras or with Costa Rica and, with an interpreter, unless he speaks Spanish, to talk to the ordinary people and ask them what the Sandinista revolution has meant to them during the past seven years. Rather he should do that than read the CIA briefs on which, presumably, the Foreign Office relies for all its information.
Serious news has come through more recently. To some extent, the entire Iran-gate saga can be described as slightly farcical at times. Indeed, reading some sections of the Tower commission report, it is slightly farcical. However, it is also bloodthirsty and frightening that the


President in the White House is so obsessed with destroying the Nicaraguan Government. The British Government go along with that, as do many others.
I shall give a quotation to show how quickly history changes. On 23 January 1985 the Iranian Prime Minister, Hussein Maussavi met the Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega, in Managua. The following day President Reagan stated:
A new danger we see in Central America is the support being given to the Sandinistas by Colonel Qaddafi's Libya, the PLO, and most recently, the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.
That was President Reagan early in 1985, telling us of the dangers of Iran supporting the Sandinistan Government.
Now in March 1987 there are revelations of the British Government's involvement in running guns to the Contras. I refer to The Observer of 8 March and to an article by Hugh O'Shaugnessy, David Leigh and Simon de Bruxelles about the arms shipment to Costa Rica that was attempted in 1985. At the same time as President Reagan was announcing that he was concerned about the relationship between the Sandinistas and the Government of Ayatollah Khomeini, the British Government were apparently knowledgeable about, if not involved with the ship the Silver Sea that was used to run guns to the Contras to continue the bloodthirsty civil war in central America. The least——

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but will he please give the House some evidence to support his assertion that the British Government were knowledgeable about that vessel?

Mr. George Foulkes: I shall.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will give that information later. I am quite happy to give it now, but I would rather like the Minister to contain his excitement until my hon. Friend's speech later in this important debate.
I refer the Minister to The Observer and the references to the fact that the arms shipment to Costa Rica was attempted in 1985, using the British ship the Silver Sea with the full knowledge of the British and American Governments and with the promise of American military protection, according to the ship's chief officer, Mr. John Collins. Has any action been taken against Mr. John Collins? No. Has any action been taken against The Observer? No. Has any refutation ever been made about that story or any of the other stories?

Mr. Eggar: Yes.

Mr. Corbyn: I have yet to hear them. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that. If he wishes to intervene now he is welcome.

Mr. Eggar: I shall wait for the speech of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. Corbyn: More sinister in many ways than the illegal supply of arms to the Contras for their attempt to destroy the Nicaraguan Government is the supply of mercenaries through KMS. It apparently enjoys an office in London, the approval of the British Government in that it is employed on security duties in some British embassies in the middle east and other places——

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour Government appointed KMS to carry out protection work on behalf of individual diplomats and diplomatic buildings in 1975?

Mr. Corbyn: I understand that KMS was appointed on security duties in 1975, but there is no evidence that at that time it was involved in financing and recruiting mercenaries to fight in central America. The Minister is clutching at the most curious straws when he should mount an investigation into KMS supplying mercenaries to Nicaragua and Sri Lanka. He seems more interested in what the Labour Government may or may not have clone 12 years ago than in what is happening now in central America and at the KMS office in London.
I have a photocopy of the thoughts of Lt-Col Oliver North——

Mr. Tony Banks: Oh dear, it will not be a big bit of paper, will it?

Mr. Corbyn: It is not a big bit of paper, but it is a wonder what can be done on a photocopier that enlarges. The paper is covered in a series of doodlings. On the left it says "US", in the middle it says "Multi" and on the right it says "O/S". I am not sure what all those mean. Then there are several dots and lines down to the bottom of the page which states "KMS" which is linked with gun running between the United States, the middle east, Israel and the Contras in Nicaragua.
It is all very well for the British Government to say that this has nothing to do with them and to wash their hands of it; it has a great deal to do with them, because KMS operates in London and has their approval in contracts elsewhere and because of what is happening in central America and the professed statements of the British Government on peace within that region.
When he replies I hope that the Minister will at least have the good grace to admit that KMS is up to no good, and to announce an investigation into its activities and that the Government will reconsider the contracts between the British Government and KMS.
Recently, the British Government have resumed full diplomatic relations with Guatemala, but it is unclear exactly what discussions have taken place with the Guatemalan Government. The British Government are on record as criticising that Government's human rights' record prior to Mr. Cerezo's election as President. yet the continued abuses of human rights there suggest that all is not as it should be. Early in his term, for example, the President announced that he would not attempt to repeal the amnesty, which assures that nobody will be prosecuted for killing tens of thousands of civilians and for destroying over 400 rural villages. That is reported in the British Parliamentary Human Rights Group and Americas Watch of February 1987. It continues:
Throughout 1986, violent killings were reported in the Guatemalan press at the rate of over 100 per month and abductions and disappearances have also continued. Although the identity of those responsible for the violence is difficult to determine in at least some of the cases, the security forces appeared to be involved. This is based on the condition of some of the bodies found with marks of torture and hands bound, the fact that some of the victims were abducted and disappeared before their corpses appeared, and the failure to investigate these crimes or to punish those responsible.
Before the Government decide that President Cerezo is a second Napoleon Duarte, therefore somebody who must be given unconditional support in that region, I suggest


that they examine Guatemala's human rights record and tell us exactly what arrangements have been made in the dispute between Guatemala and Belize over territorial claims. No statement has been made by the British Government at any stage about that.
It would be wrong to conclude any discussion about central America without mentioning the awful human tragedies of the region that have occurred in the civil wars—the homelessness, the disappearances, the unbridled power enjoyed by the military in some of the region and the sheer horror and misery of the number of refugees. There are over 400,000 refugees in Mexico, 150,000 of whom come from Guatemala and 100,000 of those are not in camps under any influence or control of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There is a need for an extremely urgent appraisal of the refugee policy towards the region as a whole.
We are witnessing, in the horror of what is happening in central America, an American Administration obsessed with destroying the Government of Nicaragua, not because even in President Reagan's wildest dreams it represents a threat to anyone in the region but because it represents the threat of a good example. It represents a threat through its example in land reform, education reform, housing reform and health reform. It is interesting that when the Contra rebels attack in the rural areas and border regions of Nicaragua, they first make for the health centres and schools, the products of that revolution, because the Contra rebels hope to destroy the Government through that process.
The American Administration are obsessed with that aim. There is also considerable opposition to the American Administration. The booklet "In Contempt of Congress— The Reagan Record of Deceit and Illegality on Central America" very carefully argues the case about all the illegal actions of the Reagan Administration within the region. A very detailed report has also been produced by Witness for Peace, a Quaker organisation reporting on the effects of the Contra attacks against Nicaragua. Any section of that report will show what the horror of American policy means.
We are entitled to know exactly where the British Government stand in relation to their policy towards the region. Are they giving uncritical support to the United States in all it actions in the region? If so, they should say so. If not, they should tell us where their actions differ from United States policy within the region. We should have an assurance that in future voting at the United Nations the British Government will not act as they have acted in the past—as a poodle for President Reagan's policies.
With regard to the provision of arms to the Contras and KMS, we need a statement that no arms will go to the Contras from this country and that there will be an investigation into KMS and the relationships that some Tory Members' staff have towards the Contras and the conference that was held recently in London. Finally, we need to know that there will be a resumption of aid to Nicaragua on the level that is offered to other countries within that region so that the Nicaraguans can develop their economy in the way that they want, in a way which will not suffer interference from foreign powers.
We are witnessing a social process throughout that region of people trying to improve their own living

standards and to gain some salvation from the misery of their lives. However, the American Administration are determined to turn the clock back to the dictatorships of Somoza and the United Fruit Company that dominated the region for so long. The British Government are unclear about their policy, but they have effectively followed the United States, poodle-like, in everything that the United States has done in the region.
This is a serious issue. The region is serious and I believe that the threat of the civil wars in the region to world peace is very serious indeed. The issue deserves far more attention and more serious consideration than the British Government have been prepared to give it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in his demand for a clear statement of British Government policy on central America and about Nicaragua in particular. I will differ with him on one or two points, but on that point I very much agree with him. Before I consider Nicaragua, I think that there is at least something to be welcomed in the Guatemalan Government's more realistic attitude towards the rights and the position of the people of Belize. We all hope for significant human rights improvements in Guatemala. It is early yet to make an assessment of the human rights situation, but there has at least been a more realistic appreciation that the people of Belize are entitled to order their own affairs, and Guatemala ought to seek good and friendly relations with it if it wants to make progress.
The United States has legitimate interests in central America. It is not surprising that it takes a close interest, and is heavily committed, in many countries there. Many of us would like American power used more explicitly to support movement towards democracy and to tame the military in many of the countries concerned. The military are the real base of power in most of these countries, and the nominal civilian leaders are in a weak position. The United States could use its power to strengthen the civilianising and democratic trends much more than it appears to be doing. It should also support moves towards social progress, without which there is little hope for the poor of those very poor countries.
I speak on behalf of the alliance and take a slightly different view of Nicaragua from some hon. Members. I am a strong supporter of our alliance with America. I am not a Socialist and do not have an automatic ideological sympathy with the Sandinistas based on a shared emphasis on Socialism or Marxism. It is therefore all the more important that I should stress our view that American action in support of the Contras is wholly wrong.
The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned the Sandinista revolution in some detail. I admire some of what has been done. I admire the Government's record on literacy, public health, educational development and several other matters. I support the principle, espoused in that revolution, of pluralism, and believe that it should be sustained. When I see that principle threatened, I find myself arguing with the Sandinista Government and making representations to them.
I am well aware that that Government made some dramatic mistakes in their early years and that they recognised the fact—a quality that one might like to see shown more widely by Governments. There was clear


recognition of the Government's mistakes about the relocation of Mesquito indians and the ruthless action that the Nicaraguan forces allowed to go on at that time.
I still complain whenever human rights abuses arise in Nicaragua. We cannot be selective about human rights abuses. Wherever they arise, the British Government should take a firm stand on the side of human rights and liberty. There have been limitations on press freedom in Nicaragua, detention of opposition members and leaders and the system of popular tribunals has rightly been criticised by Amnesty International. Concern for the pressures under which the Sandinista Government are put ought not to mute our outspokenness on issues such as this.
Nicaragua has everything to gain from having the best possible human rights record. In a few weeks' time, the Inter-Parliamentary Union will have a major conference in Managua. That will be an opportunity for the Nicaraguans to set out their stall and convince a lot of visiting parliamentarians about their human rights record. The conference could be a valuable occasion, and I hope that the Nicaraguan Government can demonstrate further moves towards full implementation of constitutional protection and the removal of limitations that have been put in place.
I am firmly convinced that the United States' action in support of the Contras is quite wrong. It is wrong in international law, as the International Court of Justice has made clear. It is wrong because it is an attack on a sovereign state which is entitled to order its own affairs. It is a poor country where development is seriously inhibited by the massive cost of resisting external attack. It is wrong because it is an attack on an elected Government. There is no logic or consistency in the claim that failings in democracy or human rights in Nicaragua somehow justify support of that external attack.
It is not possible to sustain that view when one examines the human rights records of many other countries in Central and South America. If that were the logic of the view, the United States would be launching attacks on numerous countries, including some with particularly bad human rights records, which it has persistently supported over the years. There is no logical basis in the Nicaraguan human rights limitations such as I have described for the military attack which is launched on that country.
The American action is wrong also because it involves propping up a discredited movement whose actions on human rights are far more horrific than those for which one can criticise the Nicaraguan Government. The actions of the Contras in the areas in which they have operated have been unbelievably horrific. It is clearly a case of exporting terrorism from the United States into central America—exporting it by giving direct sustenance and support and by giving those engaged in this process to and from the US.
It is also manifestly wrong because it has involved extensive illegal, unauthorised actions which could not be publicly defended, and that is why they went on under cover—actions by White House staff for which they did not wish to be publicly accountable. The very nature of that activity shows how frightened they were of responsible American public opinion about the actions on which they were engaged. It is also a fundamental mistake on the part of the United States Government, because it

is likely to make Nicaraguans more hostile to America and more dependent on other allies, whom the United States does not want to see strengthened in that area.
Where does that leave the United Kingdom? The British Government have often stated that they are in favour of a peaceful solution and that they support the Contadora process. But they have always stopped short of dissociating themselves in a specific way from the actions that the United States takes. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Minister is propounding the Foreign Office line—of support for peaceful solutions and the Contadora process— while the Prime Minister is continuing to align herself with the President and those of his most reactionary advisers who have got him into the mess in which he now finds himself, for that is the effect of the Prime Minister's stand. It is to give aid and comfort to the very people who have put the President in his present embarrassment.
It is no service to a friend or ally not to tell him when one thinks he is wrong. One does not do a friend or ally a service to allow it to be widely believed over a long period that one supports him in actions which responsible American opinion widely rejects. In addition to that stand taken by the Prime Minister, the suspicion remains that arms have gone from this country into the conflict, and the allegation has been made that the Government were aware of that flow of arms.
At the very least, the Government were responsible for the mechanisms by which that process should have been known. They were responsible for the customs examination of the outgoing arms and for examining the manifests of the contents of vessels such as the Silver Sea. The Government are aware of the activities of firms such as KMS, so they were in a position to have some idea of what was going on.
It may be that the Government had no knowledge whatever, but the House cannot be satisfied about that until a proper report has been made to Parliament following a thorough investigation by the Government of the matter. I hope the Minister will agree to that, as we thought Baroness Young had agreed to it on another occasion.
It is no part of a mature international alliance not to criticise one's ally when he is wrong, and I say on behalf of the alliance that were we in government, we should want to make it much clearer that Britain does not support the action that is being taken by the United States President. The policy on which President Reagan has been engaged is not only certain to fail but is certain to be abandoned before long. It is a tragedy that all this has been visited on a country which is so poor and which could make much better use of the limited resources at its disposal than by defending itself in a futile and damaging military conflict such as this.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for initiating this debate. He has sketched a comprehensive picture of central America and has done well to point out the importance of the region and of the individual countries. I should like to refer to Guatemala, a country which tends to be overshadowed by other countries in the region, for obvious reasons.
There has been a change in British Government policy toward Guatemala since the election of the nominally


civilian government of Vinicio Cerezo. The British Government are apparently playing a part in maintaining the claim that there has been a dramatic improvement in human rights. Baroness Young has said that a limited aid package will be given to Guatemala and diplomatic relations between the two countries have been restored. Inevitably, questions arise as to the relationship between Guatemala and Belize, and I hope that the Minister will briefly touch on that.
The central question is whether there has been an improvement in human rights in Guatemala. I regret the fact that recently the British Government voted in the United Nations to remove Guatemala's status as an international pariah and to withdraw the special rapporteur. Presumably, that was premised on hard evidence that the position in that country had changed, yet that runs counter to information coming out of Guatemala and the surrounding region. It is widely documented that significant abuses of human rights are occurring.
The British parliamentary human rights group and Americas Watch paid a semi-compliment to President Cerezo when they said:
Regrettably, we must express disappointment
at the human rights situation. They said:
We do not question President Cerezo's personal commitment to improve the human rights situation…we recognise that some important improvements in human rights are taking place. There is greater freedom of expression in Guatemala today than at any time in the past decade.
But they continued:
Despite the improvements that have taken place during President Cerezo's first year, the human rights situation in Guatemala remains terrible.
They tacitly recognise that they are talking about the country which, apart from Kampuchea during the period of Pol Pot, witnessed the worst and most systematic abuse of human rights in recent history. So horrific and bestial were its practices that it earned a reputation throughout the world as being controlled by an evil regime. The modest gains in Guatemala are to be welcomed, but the report on human rights in Guatemala documents significant cases of the same kinds of abuse.
Serious observers have reported that there is not the need in Guatemala for the level of oppression that occurred in the early 1980s and that there is not the need for the army to massacre as it did in the 1980s, because the civilian population is well cowed. The system of civilian patrols and of model villages and a mainly Indian population simply cannot resist whatever the army wants to do.
Despite that, the report of the parliamentary human rights group gives frightening evidence of the abuse of its position by the army in rural areas, with the killing of innocent civilians and almost gratuitous violence. Even in the cities, where there is perhaps some evidence of an improvement in human rights, there are many examples of abuse affecting those who are politically active. The tortured corpses of two active agricultural trade unionists were found in Quezaltenango in the latter part of last year.
The most notorious recent example is that of Celso Lopez Jop, a press secretary of the Christian Democratic party to which President Cerezo belongs, who in December last year was found tortured and killed in Mixco, not far from Guatemala City. Local Christian

Democrat leaders claim that, before he died, Lopez Jop said that his assailants were members of the National Police. Despite that, President Cerezo has effectively dismissed the claim and said that there is no political motive, yet senior members of his party, including the President of the Congress, have sharply disagreed with him.
President Cerezo has recently been engaged in a massive diplomatic offensive to improve the image of Guatemala abroad. That campaign certainly seems to have influenced the British and other European Governments. If there is no evidence to suggest that there has been an improvement in human rights, but the British Government assume that that is the case, it suggests that we do not care about the violence and violation of human rights taking place in that country. Parliament should not stand for that.
It is incumbent upon the Government to say that the Government of Guatemala are guilty until they prove their innocence. That innocence has not been proven. Unless the Minister can tell us that there is significant evidence of improvement, I suggest that he should tell the Foreign Secretary that the process of relations with Guatemala should be rethought to ensure that aid is not given and that existing diplomatic relations remain for the purpose of monitoring the level of human rights in that country.

Mr. Tony Banks: In the few minutes available to me I will confine my remarks to British Government policy in respect of Nicaragua. I declare my interest in that, recently, I became the chairman of the British-Nicaragua parliamentary group. It is the only all-party parliamentary grouping that I have joined and perhaps that is a mark of how strongly I feel about the position in Nicaragua and the attitude of the American Government to the country.
It is extremely difficult to comprehend how the most powerful country on earth can feel so threatened by a tiny country with a population of some 2·8 million. The hypocrisy emerges when one realises how long Nicaragua suffered under the Somoza family. At that time criticisms from the United States Government about conditions in the country were muted, to say the least. There was enormous political and economic support for one of the vilest dictatorships in that part of central America.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has already commented on the bizzare way in which President Reagan has got himself embroiled in the problem. He seems to be manipulated by a combination of anti-Communist zealots and religious maniacs. I have still not understood how on earth it was felt that America could in some way influence Iran by sending Christmas cakes and bibles to an Islamic fundamentalist state. Perhaps that says something about the state of mind of the President of the United States and those who advise him. It is no wonder that the person who took the cakes and bibles to that country subsequently tried to commit suicide.
It should be remembered that, in April, the Inter-Parliamentary Union is meeting in Managua and I understand that the United States will not be represented—that is a great pity. However, at the same time as the delegation from the House will be in Managua, the United States will have some 50,000 service men and women on an exercise in Honduras that I believe is called Solid


Shield. That exercise is set to coincide with the spring offensive of the Contras. We must ask whether that exercise is part of a preparation for the invasion of Nicaragua. However, the five-year terrorist campaign conducted by the Contras has been a singular failure and has won no support in that country.
It is true that the American Government have been involving themselves in international terrorism and therefore they have lessened their ability and power to condemn other regimes, such as Libya, that the American Government believe are involved in international terrorism.
So far we have discussed the possibility of the British arms being supplied to the Contras. I accept that that has not happened directly, but we must know from the Minister whether there is any knowledge, within the Government, of British-manufactured arms ending up in the hands of the Contras. Is there any knowledge of British arms being in the hands of the Contras? that is a question that we need to have answered this morning. There are many stories flying around and it might assist if the Government were to think about extending end-user certificates to arms exports to the United States, as Lord Kennet suggested in another place to Lord Trefgarne, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, only to receive a dusty answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned British bilateral aid to Nicaragua. The Library has supplied me with figures showing that for the six years between 1974 and 1979, British aid to Nicaragua averaged £295,000 a year. In the six years between 1980 and 1985, in the period immediately following the overthrow of Somoza, the average fell to £76,000 per annum. It reached an all-time low of £9,000 in 1984. It increased to £116,000 in 1985, and I should like to know the figure for 1986.
Will the Government be pressing for an EEC initiative on central America? Will the British Government insist that the United States Government adhere to international law and attempt to reach a political solution through the Contadora process? Will the British Government be prepared to step up bilateral aid to Nicaragua? Will we be establishing full representation in Nicaragua, with an ambassador based in Managua? The Minister will know that, from 13 March, the Nicaraguan Government have requested the good offices of the Contadora to form an investigative commission to prevent further attacks from across the borders of neighbouring states. That refutes the idea that Nicaragua is attempting to destabilise surrounding states. It is asking for the protection of the Contadora states and thereby establishing that the aggression is coming across the border from Honduras and not going the other way.
It is clear from what we have heard this morning and from what we have read that the people of Nicaragua are struggling to establish their freedom and much deserve the support of all civilised nations. On this occasion I hope that Britain can be counted among the civilised.

Mr. George Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on being lucky once again in the Consolidated Fund debate and on his eloquent and comprehensive introduction to the debate. Whatever criticism the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr.

Beith) may have of the Sandinista regime, I am sure that he shares the view of my hon. Friend and me that that is no justification for United States support for what is now the largest state-sponsored example of terrorism in the world. It is terrorism which has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world.
I shall concentrate on the British connection in the supply of arms to the Contra terrorists, with no disrespect to all the other important issues which have been dealt with by my colleagues and with which I have dealt elsewhere. The issue is urgent, and it is central to the problems of the entire region. I want to show that a web of intrigue and deception has been built up and that there have been clandestine operations to supply arms to the Contra terrorists with, in my view, the tacit approval of the British Government. This has contravened two of the main planks of British foreign policy. The first plank is the Government's avowed opposition to terrorism. The second is their avowed support for a peaceful solution to the problems in central America.
We are not considering the overt support or approval of the supply of arms to the Contra terrorists, which is what the Minister and his colleagues always say is not taking place. No one suggests that Short Brothers or anyone else applies for export licences to the Department of Trade and Industry, which are then transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for approval, which leads to the supply of Blowpipe missiles or whatever to the Contra terrorists. It is not done like that. Instead, there is a clandestine operation.
I am concerned that this issue has arisen because we. have heard previously that the British Government on two occasions, at the time of the ruling of the International Court of Justice and on the £100 million decision by Congress, made some quite positive statements through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They said that they accepted the International Court's rulings — that was Britain's normal practice—and that they did not think that the problems of central America should be solved by military means.
Clearly, coming into line with civilised opinion here and throughout the world was not popular with the American Administration. I have always had my suspicions—as some of my colleagues have had—about the real actions that the Government have been undertaking. It is easy to see how President Reagan's reaction to what was said by the Foreign Office can have influenced United Kingdom policy. To a great extent, I go along with the remarks by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. There seems to be a prime ministerial policy on this matter that is quite separate from Foreign Office policy. It is easy to see how that can arise.
We know of Reagan's obsession with Nicaragua. We know of the special relationship between President Reagan and the Prime Minister. We know that there have been other examples of complicity in which the President required a willing accomplice. We saw that in the withdrawal from UNESCO, in the F111 bombing of Tripoli, and, in the Nicaraguan context, in support of the blocking of the IADB loans. We also know that the Contra terrorists wanted the accurate Blowpipe missiles and other arms from the United Kingdom. It is reasonable to assume that even our Prime Minister could not provide


them directly and openly, as I said earlier, and so a nod and a wink to the private sector arms dealers — the merchants of death—was the likely way of doing it.
We heard about the Silver Sea. I do not rely only on articles in The Observer. I have a copy of a document, signed by John Collins, who became captain of the Silver Sea, about its despatch from Portsmouth on 15 February and about how it was supposedly on an innocent mission and took arms on board. The owner of the Silver Sea told him:
we had the blessing of our own government, also that of the United States.
That document was signed by someone who was principally involved. The Minister needs to try to address that matter. In his statement, John Collins also said that he reported to special branch. When he got back, he telephoned special branch and told them the truth regarding the Silver Sea. He said:
I had already been interviewed by them after my return from France.
What has happened to the special branch report, the investigations and the statements that they took? Has any report been produced to the Minister or to any other Minister? Will the Minister say what is in the report? As the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed said — I also got this information in answer to a parliamentary question — there has been a Customs and Excise investigation into the Silver Sea. What has been the result? Does the Foreign Office know what is going on and what Customs and Excise is doing about this strange operation? Is a warrant out for the owner of the Silver Sea, Bill Sutton? Are the police or Customs and Excise officials making every effort to locate and question this man, who is responsible for setting up an arms supply deal in Costa Rica on his way to the Contras? Is William Sutton known to any Minister, particularly the Prime Minister?
What is the position of Mr. John Collins? On Monday 16 March he was to talk to the press, but he pulled out at the last minute, and said that he would talk only to me. He was then reluctant to do that—he had cold feet. Is the Minister aware of any pressure being applied to John Collins by the Government, any of their agencies or anyone else, to keep quiet about the connection, and particularly the Government's connection, with the operation?
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the very shadowy KMS operation in London. Why has the Prime Minister blocked questions about her meetings with Major David Walker of KMS? What is she afraid or? Major Walker has been described as Britain's Colonel Oliver North. What is the link between KMS and the Contra arms supply that is hinted at in Colonel North's doodlings, as reproduced in the Tower commission report and confirmed by the Prime Minister's reply to me on 4 March. Has the Department considered carrying out an investigation? We thought we had convinced Lady Young that an investigation should be carried out, but before she could get anything moving, somebody must have taken the matter out of her hands.
The evidence in the Tower commission report deals with the web of intrigue and confirms our suspicions about the British Government's involvement. It gives an account of the setting up of a system for the supply of Blowpipe missiles to the Contra terrorists. It is surprising and

disappointing that little publicity has been given to it. Because of the concentration on President Reagan's involvement, perhaps the British connection was overlooked. It is political dynamite.
I shall refer to two passages in the Tower commission report. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will deal with them.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that it is a remarkable testament to the United States as a society that the Tower Commission report was published? If such things had happened in this country, we should never have heard about them.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the precise point on which I shall end my speech—but not yet. An investigation of that kind is needed into the British connection. All credit is due to the United States for being able to conduct that kind of investigation.
Page 465 of the version of the Tower commission report that is before me says:
On March 26, 1986, three months after Mr. McFarlane left Government service, Lt. Col. North informed Mr. McFarlane of his efforts … to obtain Blowpipe launchers and missiles for the Contras: We are trying to find a way to get 10 Blowpipe launchers and 20 missiles from a South American country"—
which we understand to be Chile—
thru the Short Bros Rep … Short Bros, the manufacturer of the Blowpipe, is willing to arrange the deal, conduct the training and even send UK 'technical reps' forward if we can close the arrangement … we have a"—
and the country is deleted—
end-user certificate which is acceptable to that South American country.
There is direct evidence that Short Brothers was conniving at evading the provisions of the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment) Order.
Will the Government now consider prosecuting Short Brothers? Did Short Brothers negotiate with Colonel North on its own initiative, or was it asked to do it—as I suspect-by the Prime Minister? Will the Government launch an investigation into the real destination of all Blowpipe missiles that were exported in 1985 and 1986, or should we assume that Short Brothers acted in direct contravention of the Government's stated policy on Nicaragua, at the instigation of the Government? Will the Minister explicitly condemn the action of Short Brothers and now allow the British public to have the information that we assume is available to the CIA? Will he publish the details of Blowpipe exports?
On page 344, the report says:
On June 10, 1986, North wrote to Poindexter: 'Critically needed items are being flown in from Europe to the expanded warehouse facility at Ilopango.' In the same note North went on: 'We should look to going back to a head of an allied government on the blowpipes if we are going to do anything at all about outside support in the next few days, and I would love to carry the letter from Ronald Reagan.
That implies the involvement of a European Government. Can the Minister categorically deny that any of that came from Britain? How many allied Governments would the Americans go to about Blowpipe? The use of the words "going back" are revealing. Do they not show that the matter had been discussed at a different point?
That brings me to one of the most important questions that I want the Minister to answer. Were Blowpipes and the supply of those missiles discussed between Colonel North, Mr. Casey—the then head of the CIA—and the Prime Minister? Did Colonel North carry a letter from


Ronald Reagan on either or both of his visits and in the meetings that he had with the Prime Minister during 1986? Will the Under-Secretary get the Prime Minister to publish the letter and the minutes of those meetings? We need to know what happened at those meetings between Mr. Casey, Mr. North and the Prime Minister last year. What were they talking about if it was not the supply of Blowpipe missiles to the Contra terrorists?
This is a matter of great importance. I do not believe that that supply could have taken place without Government awareness at the very least, or their tacit approval.
It is unlikely that the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with the questions in a way that will satisfy us, if he deals with them at all. I doubt whether the Under-Secretary even knew what was going on when all this was taking place.
I issue the Under-Secretary this warning. We shall pursue this matter relentlessly until the truth is revealed. That can only be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, if an independent investigation is set up, as was done in the United States. The Minister should be honest and straightforward today, because I expect further revelations soon. It is better for the Under-Secretary to be honest now than for it to be proved later that he has been dishonest. The pressure for an investigation will become inexorable. It is better to set up that investigation now rather than later.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): May I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on putting his name forward tonight. However, I wish that he had chosen a more appropriate time to hold the debate. Having listened to the debate I wish also that his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) had been here when he should have been for Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions last Wednesday. We might have been spared a disruptive night.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North for having given his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) an opportunity to give vent to his over-active imagination. It has long been a characteristic of his and I have sometimes wondered whether it is a cause or a symptom of his problems. I suppose that he feels that he must go on fantasising in some vague hope that his fantasies will suddenly turn into reality, rather like Cinderella at the ball.
Hon. Members have expressed their concerns about Central America, and it is right that they should do so. It is also of considerable concern to the Government. I can only deplore the way in which some hon. Members persist in wilfully misrepresenting the Government's policy towards the region. The obsessive theme that has come from Opposition Members is all the more unjustifiable when we have explained in clear terms, and on numerous occasions in the House and elsewhere, our consistent policy. We support a peaceful, political negotiated solution to the region's problems. Sadly, that message— which I have spelt out time and time again—seems to have fallen on the deaf ears of Opposition Members. Instead, it seems to have been subsumed in a series of

unfounded, ill-researched assertions which do no credit to the hon. Member for Islington, North or the reputation of the House.
Allegations have been made that the Government gave approval for the supply of Blowpipes to the Contras. Those allegations are entirely without foundation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made this quite clear to the House. Other baseless and irresponsible allegations have been made and I should like to reiterate in the strongest terms that at no time have the Government authorised the supply of arms to the Contras.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made allegations about the role of Short Brothers. Whatever approaches may have been made to Short Brothers on behalf of the Contras— and we saw the Tower commission report before the hon. Gentleman did— no supply of Blowpipe missiles to the Contras was authorised. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, the United States Government have assured us that there are no Blowpipe missiles in Contra hands and that they have no intention of supplying Blowpipes.
We have consistently called for a reduction in arms levels in central America. That has been our consistent policy and we shall stick to it. We have clearly demonstrated over past years our support for a political and not a military solution to the problems of the region. Our actions have been and will continue to be fully— and I stress fully—consistent with that policy.
I shall now deal with two of the more fanciful allegations that were made first about the Silver Sea and secondly about KMS. The wild allegation that any member of the Government had knowledge of a reported arms shipment on the Silver Sea to the Contras is without basis and that allegation has already been quite clearly denied. We have seen various versions of the apparently bizarre events surrounding the voyage of the Silver Sea from Southhampton to Brest. At times the events seemed to have more of a "Pirates of Penzance" feel than the feel of any serious arms smuggling operation.
All our reports appear to coincide in the fact that after leaving Southampton the ship got no further than Brest after the crew became sea sick and the captain felt that he had to put in and ask the French authorities for assistance. The captain was subsequently charged with importing arms into France. The French public prosecutor is reported to have said that no significant war material was found. The items found were three or four jeeps, military communications equipment, rubber dinghies, secondhand military uniforms and some daggers.
From questioning the crew it was believed that the ship was bound for Africa. Whatever may be the truth about the Silver Sea, the fact remains that we have no knowledge about its sailing nor did we at any time authorise any supply of arms to the Contras.
I shall now turn to the allegations that the Government were aware of or approved the alleged involvement of KMS with the Contras. Those allegations are entirely without foundation. It is true that at various times between 1975 and 1982 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed KMS to provide personal and building protection at those of our posts overseas which were subject to a high level of threat of violent attack, but KMS has not been employed in any capacity since 1982.
As a commercial company, KMS contracts to provide services and it is not, of course, controlled by the Government. We are, of course, aware of the reference to


KMS in the Tower commission report, but we have seen no other evidence of its alleged involvement with the Contras. The hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that there should be an inquiry into these wild and fanciful allegations.
The hon. Member for Islington, North and the Liberal spokesman suggested that there should be an inquiry into these wild and fanciful allegations. There is nothing to inquire into. The allegations are nothing more than wild, stray imagination that has been put together in a fanciful web by the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench. On the role of human rights in Guatemala——

Mr. Foulkes: Just on one point.

Mr. Eggar: It is unreasonable of the hon. Gentleman to have left me so little time. I have only six minutes left and I would like to do justice to the other points raised in this debate.

Mr. Corbyn: It is not my hon. Friend's fault.

Mr. Eggar: I agree. It is the fault of the hon. Member for Islington, North, but his hon. Friend will have to suffer on his account.
The question of human rights in Guatemala was raised. We believe that the incidence of human rights violations such as disappearances and death squad killings has decreased considerably since the present Government in Guatemala came to power, and we hope this improvement will continue. We condemn all violations of human rights wherever they occur. We do not believe, however, that the present Guatemalan Government sanctions those violations that still occur.
We are strengthened in our view by the fact that the United Nations special representative on human rights in Guatemala has expressed similar sentiments to our own in his report to the 1987 United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Of course, there is still a long way to go in improving human rights within Guatemala. My right hon. Friend Baroness Young made exactly that point to the President of Guatemala during her visit to that country. The hon. Member for Islington, North also raised the question of the rapprochement that appears to be taking place between Guatemala and Belize. We welcome any improvement in relations between those two sovereign and independent countries, but we do not have any direct role in any discussions that may take place.
I turn to the role of the Contadora group. The Government, together with our European partners, have given practical support to the efforts of the Contadora group to promote the resolution of the problems of South America through regional multilateral negotiations. We want to see, and have supported practically, a comprehensive, verifiable and simultaneously implemented agreement on the basis of the Contadora objectives agreed by all five Central American countries in September 1983.
The basic plank of our policy—and I was asked to express it—is support for the Contadora process. The twenty-one objectives drawn up and agreed by all the Contadora and central American states as the basis of a regional settlement have gained widespread international support. They include the end of support for cross-border subversion and destabilisation, an end to the arms race and foreign military bases and advisers, the elimination of traffic in arms, a full pluralist democracy, internal reconciliation and respect for human rights.
We have no doubt that a comprehensive settlement based on these objectives would be the best solution. We are encouraged by the Decision of the Presidents of the five central American states to meet within the next two months at Esquipulas in Guatemala to discuss proposals for peace that have been put forward by President Arias of Costa Rica. This is a highly significant development, since peace can only be achieved through an agreement among the central Americans themselves. The Contadora group and its support group have welcomed this decision and reaffirm their willingness to support efforts to achieve peace in the region. The aims of both the Contadora peace plan and the Costa Rican proposals are to promote democracy and to restore peace and stability to the region. We support these aims.
I move now to a general discussion of democracy in the central American region. There have been some encouraging developments in this region over the past two or three years. In Belize, which has fortunately managed to stay outside the conflicts in the region, democracy is flourishing, as the elections of 1985 showed. In Guatemala, a democratically elected Government took power in January 1986 for the first time for more than 30 years. That Government are committed to economic and social development and an improvement in human rights. In December, we agreed with the new Government to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations. In Honduras, elections were held in November 1985, which were widely judged to have been free and fair. The transfer of power in January 1986 from one democratically elected civilian president to another was the first such transfer for 50 years. Costa Rica's democratic credentials are well established, and I have already referred to its valiant efforts to promote peace in the area.
Sadly, in Nicaragua, the situation is different. I wish that Opposition Members had expressed a slightly more balanced view of what is happening there. For instance, why, with the exception of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, did they not urge the Nicaraguan Government to establish a full pluralist democracy? Why did they not urge the Nicaraguan Government to reduce massive stockpiles of Soviet weaponry? Why did they not urge that Government to end support for subversion in neighbouring countries? Why did——

In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19] the Debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Textiles (ERDF)

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping him here at this late hour. I am not sure that, if the situation were reversed and I were the Minister, I would automatically be well disposed to pleas for help made to me at this time in the morning.
I wish to speak about the problems faced by former textile areas that are eligible for benefit from the European Regional Development Fund. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at last about this important matter. I say "at last" because not only have I applied unsuccessfully for an Adjournment debate in the past five weeks, but the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whom I am pleased to see here, has been equally unsuccessful in such applications. Questions from me and from my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) put down to the Department of the Environment were transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which then transferred them back to the Department of the Environment. I was beginning to despair.
The ERDF was established in 1975 as an instrument of European Community regional policy to help to correct regional economic imbalances, arising in particular from agricultural preponderance, industrial change and structural unemployment. In the United Kingdom, regional problems arise mainly from industrial obsolescence, geographical remoteness, and the need to replace outworn infrastructure. Assistance given by the fund falls under two main headings— grants for industrial, handicraft or service activities and grants for infrastructure works carried out wholly or in part by local and public authorities.
EEC regulation 219/84, which covers the textile measure, adds demolition and redevelopment of disused industrial sites to the list of eligible activities. The guiding principle behind the allocation of finance from the European Community is that it should provide an additional element to the activities undertaken by member states. The term "additionality" can be viewed in two ways. The Community assistance should be additional to the level of spending already undertaken at national level, or the Community aid should enable additional schemes to be carried out that would not have taken place without Community funding.
As a result of discussions on the textile measure, the Commission received assurances from the Government that expenditure on the reconversion of premises and the reclamation of derelict land, financed by ERDF grants, would allow local authorities to extend their expenditure limits by an amount equal to the ERDF aid without penalty.
The Government, in response to numerous approaches on the matter, maintain that anticipated ERDF receipts are taken into account in setting the levels of local government spending, which are, therefore, higher than they would be without those receipts. However, that is never quantified.
I share the concern of the Association of District Councils about the Government's position and, like the association, I believe that ERDF aid should be genuinely additional to other resources and that the degree of additionality must be clearly visible. I believe that the

Government's present practice is unfair and illogical and affects areas such as Hyndburn detrimentally. If a local authority is eligible under the non-quota textile measure and receives a grant from ERDF, no corresponding increase is permitted in its capital allocation.
Although the estimated receipts from ERDF are apparently taken into account when the national aggregate for local government expenditure is determined, no allowance is made for the fact that only a prescribed number of authorities are going to be eligible to receive ERDF grants when annual capital allocations are made to individual authorities. Consequently, the potential benefit of ERDF grants in terms of increased capital spending ability, is spread over all United Kingdom authorities rather than directed solely towards those areas that the EEC, and presumably the Government, intend to assist because of their serious economic problems. In that sense, therefore, there is no additionality at local level.
The potential benefit, therefore, of additional investment in economic revitalisation of particular areas is lost, the additional finance being dissipated throughout the nation to needy and not so needy authorities alike, rather than being allocated specifically to the authorities which are judged, by reason of the textile measure, to need it. That seems to be illogical, and I cannot believe that the Government intend to penalise us in that way.
The only financial benefit a textile authority receives is on revenue, since it will be paying interest on only 50 per cent. of the total cost if a grant is received. However, in terms of tangible works to revitalise the local economy, there is no net gain in the amount of work the authority can afford to carry out. That should be, and surely is, the primary aim of the textile measure. The present measure severely limits the number and sizes of schemes that can be financed, with or without ERDF assistance and economic benefits are lost.
The effect of those constraints is serious for Hyndburn and the other textile closure area authorities involved. Take-up under the textile measure is currently biased towards those authorities that are fortunate enough to be designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, since that gives them substantial capital allocations. Hyndburn, despite repeated requests and a strong case, has no such status and is experiencing real difficulties in putting forward eligible schemes, given the current capital expenditure controls.
Mill conversion schemes, as envisaged by the measure, are generally out of the main stream of many authorities' capital programmes. Hence, accommodating such a scheme to obtain grant may be difficult because of the scale of expenditure involved, or it can mean deferring or deleting another scheme. The grants may therefore only create a substitution effect.
Authorities are also seriously concerned that the original intentions for the grant moneys are not being maintained in an effort to distribute the finance available in the time scale available. Although schemes of environmental improvement can be important, they were clearly stated to be a low priority. The amount of grant being allocated to such schemes appears to be substantial and that must be attributable to the lack of suitable mill conversion schemes being put forward. It is of concern that the main objective of the measure is apparently not being realised, since one of the major problems in those


areas is the lack of modern, efficient industrial buildings and the substantial numbers of under-used former textile mills.
I am concerned that many grants under the non-quota textile measure are gravitating to the inner urban area authorities, particularly programme authorities, and are being allocated, in a number of instances, to schemes offering less economic benefit.
My local authority of Hyndburn feels strongly that the system should be changed soon. I share its view that the amount included in local government expenditure for ERDF receipts should be eliminated from that calculation and a system introduced which would direct the grant receipts only to those authorities that are eligible.
As the Government know what assumptions are made about ERDF receipts, when they determine the national total for the block five—the other services block—of the capital allocation, I would have thought that it would be a simple matter to isolate that element from the rest of block five. It would then be possible to issue approvals for additional capital allocations, specific to approvals given to local authorities for ERDF schemes. That is the system currently employed for the urban programme, urban development grants and derelict land grants. If an authority receives grant, it also receives the necessary allocation to cover that grant. It would be acceptable for only the EEC grant element to receive an additional capital allocation, thus achieving the additionality that authorities are seeking. The Department of the Environment administers non-quota grants and the process would appear to be more straightforward than for quota grants.
If deemed necessary, as with derelict land grants, the capital allocation could be made after a return of expenditure is submitted at the end of a financial year because formal approval of allocation is retrospective. That would overcome the problem of divergence between planned and actual expenditure.
The logic of such a system is extremely powerful. If such systems are felt to be adequate for allocating grant under the urban programme and derelict land grants, which involve substantial sums, there seems to be a strong case for a similar system to be introduced to deal with ERDF grants. It seems odd that ERDF grants continue to be treated as a general benefit vis-a-vis capital allocations, whereas other aid to tackle urban obsolescence and economic decline is excluded and targeted on precisely those authorities that need it.
As a possible alternative, that proportion of the national allocation that relates to ERDF grants could be reserved for distribution to eligible authorities by certain criteria before the remainder is divided among other authorities. That method would be less accurate and more cumbersome than the first, but would still be preferable to the present arrangements.
In previous correspondence or meetings, Ministers have indicated a reluctance to reduce the allocations to the local authority associations, since there is a general desire to allow the associations to decide their own priorities. As that freedom does not extend to key expenditure programmes, such as the urban programme, it is somewhat difficult to accept that the Government would in any way create a precedent by removing ERDF grants.
The Minister scarcely needs to be reminded of the dramatic decline in the textile industries, from which stems much of our urban decay. I am sure that he recognises the concern of the local authorities involved and their commitment to local industries and employment.
Like other textile closure areas of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, Hyndburn covers an area which is proud of its record of self-reliance and productivity. ERDF, properly allocated, would greatly help our efforts to revitalise local industry and stand firmly on our feet once again. Hyndburn has the will, the expertise and the capacity to augment the role of the Government and the EEC in economic recovery, but we need to be given a realistic opportunity to do so.
I am grateful to the Government for the extra money that Hyndburn has received for housing, derelict land and for the town centre redevelopment, but we can spend wisely in Hyndburn every pound that we receive. I urge the Minister to act to change the present system of ERDF allocation so that we benefit fully from it.
We are especially concerned that the Government's attitude as seen by the European Commission, may discourage the EEC from directing special assistance in future to the needy regions of the United Kingdom. That would be a tragedy for many areas, not least for Hyndburn.

Mr. Peter Pike: I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I certainly note the endeavours of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) to achieve a debate on this subject for a considerable time. He has coordinated Members of Parliament covered by the non-textile measures which apply not only to Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Yorkshire, but to other areas. Hon. Members representing those areas are equally worried about the problems of the ERDF non-quota measures as hon. Members present. I am sure that it is only the early hours of the morning that have prevented others from being present.
I wondered which Minister would reply and I am pleased that it is the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, because he will listen to our case and, if he cannot answer all our points because the matter covers more than one Department, he will have them considered fairly. Even if the answer is not favourable, they will be responded to. Obviously, we hope that the response will be favourable.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of tabling questions on this subject. There is a tendency to transfer them from one Department to another. Not only is the DTI involved but the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, which likes to stick its fingers into all Departments. That only makes the matter more complex. In addition, the fund originates from the EC, so that that further complicates the matter.
The two problems are the complexity of getting schemes approved and money committed for them, and additionality. The DOE is responsible for the administration of non-quota measures for the infrastructure. Only last week the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), in a written answer, made it clear that, of the £21,529,000 originally available under non-quota measures, £11,218,235 is still to be allocated and that the measures expire in 1989. There is grave anxiety that approvals are taking so long.
I intended to make many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and certainly I agree with most of his remarks. Points of difference would be only minor. It is important to recognise the joint political approach and great similarity of view on this subject in all the areas affected.
If the EC makes funds available, clearly they are additional resources. It is important to be clear that they are not a substitute for resources that the Government would have made available in any event. The hon. Gentleman rightly made that important point, and I intend to spend some time on it.
It is difficult to get schemes approved. A scheme in my constituency relates to Slaters terrace, which is on the Leeds-Liverpool canal. It is a terrace of cottages overlooking the canal which was built at the end of the 18th century when the canal was built. It is standing derelict. It was visited on 23 April last year— St. George's day—by Prince Charles; and Rod Hackney of Hackney Associates has produced a report which refers to what is known in Burnley as the "weavers' triangle". It is an area of great importance in the industrial development of this country. Britain's wealth in the last century, in the great industrial revolution, was based on the growth of the cotton industry and on the coal and other natural resources in the area. That revolution has greatly changed civilisation throughout the world. Lancashire played an important role in the early stages of that revolution.
We have been waiting for a decision on Slaters terrace for some considerable time and we are still awaiting that decision. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), said only recently that that item was still on ice following his inquiries. At one time Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Blackburn were dominated by the old large cotton mills, with their chimneys belching out smoke. That has completely changed. There are still some mills working, but the position is now very different from that which even I knew as a boy when I was evacuated to Burnley during the war to my mother's home town which she had had to leave during the recession in the 1930s. We want to see those areas thrive once again.
In a letter sent by Burnley borough council to the Association of District Councils on 27 November 1985—and I have been pursuing the issue since then, so this dates back some time now— Mr. Brian Whittle explained to Gordon McCartney, the secretary of the ADC, that he would be aware that Burnley borough council was
one of several Districts in the North West which together with a number of Metropolitan Boroughs, are eligible for ERDF assistance under the Non-Quota Textile Closure Area measure. Growing concern has been expressed that, because of the Government's controls over capital and revenue spending, the take-up of assistance available under this measure has been seriously inhibited.
Mr. Whittle went on to refer to the ADC's economic document to which the hon. Member for Hyndburn referred. That sets out the ADC's view on additionality. As that point has already been dealt with, I do not intend to go into detail on it again. However, the document makes it clear that the ADC's view is the same as that expressed in the debate tonight, and therefore that view has a considerable measure of broad support.
On 3 July 1986 I received a letter about a delegation meeting the Minister for Environment, Countryside and

Planning. That delegation discussed the problems of additionality. The hon. Member for Hyndburn was also fully involved in that process.
At that stage, the council stressed a particular problem of additionality affecting Burnley. In the last paragraph of his letter to me dated 3 July 1986, Mr. Whittle states:
The Council was recently informed that the provision of the industrial units at Queen Street Mill would qualify for grant assistance from the ERDF Non-Quota Sector in the sum of £85,223. However, as a certain element of this grant relates to works already grant aided under the Industrial and Commercial Urban Programme, the sum of £53,000 will need to be returned to the Department of the Environment. Furthermore, the Department of the Environment is not prepared to transfer this sum to other Urban Programme Schemes".
The letter then gives some of the other schemes that have been rejected.
Having been able to get additional resources from Europe, it seems that, as the Government do not have sufficient money to approve all of Burnley's urban programme submissions, they should at least allow funds to be switched among those which have been rejected, but no, the money has to go back to the Department.
Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. raised the issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 18 September. Its letter says:
It is understood unofficially that it is likely to be October/ November before an announcement is made. I am therefore writing to you with the unanimous support of the Directors of the Company and with all part y support from the County Council to ask, in the light of the Government's knowledge of the way in which LEL is funded and the acceptance, referred to in your letter, that companies appropriate to the situation should be encouraged, that LEL should be immediately freed from the general freeze".
The letter says that the company was awaiting approval for £1,712,542 worth of schemes. It says that they are in line with the Government's priorities as they are designed to encourage the development and expansion of small firms. One of those schemes would have lapsed if other sources of funding had not been found. Projects have been put in jeopardy, however, and that has job implications.
The Chief Secretary finally sent a reply saying that it was no longer a Treasury problem and that it was now with the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen got involved and tried to push the schemes along, but they were simply pushed from one Department to another. They still have not been sorted out and we are within sight of the end of the financial year.
I have a mass of correspondence which shows the difficulties that Lancashire county council and Burnley borough council have had. I know that the same is true of Hyndburn, Pendle and other areas. In its most recent document, the Association of District Councils, which is not Labour dominated, repeats the principles of additionality. The latest information we have is that the delays are due to the lawyers in the EEC. So the ball is back in Europe. The EEC, on the other hand, tell us that the British Government are at fault and that it is not Europe's problem. The matter has been raised with the MEP for Lancashire, East, Mike Hindley, who has taken it up.
We have different Government Departments blaming each other, the Government blaiming the EEC and the EEC blaiming the Government. The situation is defeating the whole object of the fund. We deserve assistance. We have overcome many of the problems that have arisen


locally because of the decline of industries in the Lancashire area. We have fought to survive. We do not expect everything to be done for us.
I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will take the necessary action to abolish the unfair principle of additionality as it is operated now and will ensure that steps are taken to deal more speedily with applications when they are made, from wherever in the country they come. I hope that the Minister will give us a ray of hope for the future.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): I wish at the outset to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on raising these issues, and I assure him that whatever the time, be it 1.30, 3.30 or any hour of the night, it is a pleasure to respond to a debate which he has initiated. I assure him that there is no question of awkwardness in having a ministerial colleague here at this hour on a matter of this importance.
I appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). My hon. Friend and the hon. Member, representing Lancashire seats, will recognise, having a Yorkshire Member responding to them, that there is much more about which we agree than disagree when it comes to dealing with problems associated with areas of textile decline.
But the issue which my hon. Friend has raised supersedes the question of textile decline areas. He and the hon. Member for Burnley have raised the subject of additionality, which is a feature of the policy currently applied in particular in local government capital expenditure. It spreads right across local authorities, all of which benefit in many ways from the ERDF set up by the European Community.
My hon. Friend will recognise that the essential policy is a matter of local authority expenditure and that that is primarily a matter for the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment. Indeed, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member might look somewhat charitably on my appearance here to answer a debate the major component of which has been a discussion about local authority financing, for which I have no ministerial responsibility.
But the fact that my hon. Friend has raised problems facing the European regional development fund in non-quota former textile areas I hope still entitles me to respond to the points raised in the debate, certainly as they affect directly the operation of my Department's responsibilities in the textile area or former textile area schemes which are under discussion.
I shall first address the central issue of additionality. Having made it clear that the central Department which deals with this issue is the Department of the Environment, my first task is to say that I shall see to it that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is fully apprised of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and by the hon. Member for Burnley. I know from my direct involvement with the Department of the Environment some little time ago of the burning issues which are raised on additionality in relation to capital expenditure programmes. This has been reviewed from time to time, and I think that my hon.
Friend is well aware of that. Indeed, it was reviewed last year when there were discussions between the Government and local government representatives on possible routes through what is clearly seen as a major bone of contention.
The Government's view is clear. It is clear that local authority expenditure is a very large slice of total public expenditure. I am sure that my hon. Friend, although he did not say it, would subscribe to the importance of containing public expenditure as a matter of national economic management or at least being able to assess it in relation to what the economy can legitimately be said to afford. It follows, therefore, that when discussions are held on European schemes, there is inevitably an element of potential double counting. They are schemes which are well known in advance and by which local authorities— I am sure that those hon. Members who are present would agree that each of theirs is one such authority—are able to take into account some of the benefits that would arise in their areas, should they be eligible for certain receipts from the European regional development fund. In essence, the Government have been seeking for some years to ensure that the regional development funds are taken into account when local authority capital expenditure programmes are set and, therefore, have already been taken on board when the final decisions are taken on the total local authority spend through the rate support grant system.
During the discussions last year, there was a proposition that an amount sliced off the top of the other services block might be allocated as the payment for ERDF money and that that would be a possible formula. But, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and the hon. Member for Burnley recognise, that was not found acceptable in the discussions between the Government and the local authority. Therefore, the situation remains that expected receipts for the ERDF are taken into account when capital allocations are set. So long as that is the case, if separate sums are available, there would obviously be a form of double accounting.
I accept that the problem cannot be allowed to rest there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has agreed that this issue should be addressed in the discussions on the Green Paper on local authority financing, which he published last autumn. I hope that my hon. Friend will take heart from the fact that, because there is a major disagreement about the allocation and additionality consequences of the ERDF receipts, this matter should be so addressed. The discussions on the Green Paper, which was published last year under the title "Paying for Local Government", deal with that issue. I have little doubt that local authority associations and individual authorities will cover in their responses this issue of additionality which has caused such concern for so long.
Local authority associations play a part in the decisions on the size of the capital allocations. My hon. Friend will know that after consultations the final decision on the capital allocations is made. Therefore the present policy of determining the total capital allocation, when those allocations come before my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment for final decision, reflects the collective view of local authorities.
I accept that there are many areas in the country where the local authorities may not feel that the collective


decision and national determination adequately reflect what they want to do in the areas that are affected by industrial decline.
I have broadly referred to the issue of additionality and I shall now turn to the question of dealing with the areas of decline. Those hon. Members who are present have raised the issue of additionality in the context of their desire that funds be made available to assist the regeneration of areas that are suffering as a result of the decline of the traditional industries in their areas.
There are aspects of the ERDF that are directly the responsibility of my Department, that is the use of funds to assist industries in the specific areas, defined by the ERDF as being non-quota measures, that have been affected by the decline of textiles, shipbuilding, steel and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and the hon. Member for Burnley are aware of that.
In recent times there has been much interest in making use of the additional opportunities for expenditure and additional funding made available by the European Community. There has been a feeling that the northern parts of the United Kingdom do not receive a sufficient amount to deal with the declining traditional industries such as textiles. I assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's determination to ensure that, although we are one of the wealthier nations in relation to the entire Community, we fight firmly for our share of additional funds for assisted areas, especially those suffering structural decline.
As the Community has enlarged and taken in countries in the south, there is a need for the maximum degree of effort to ensure that the northern parts of the Community are considered with equal intensity as those countries in the south. However, it must be accepted that there is an obvious difference between the quality of the infrastructure and industrial activity in those countries compared with the countries in the north of the Community.
The ERDF non-quota measures provide the opportunity to maximise our efforts. The total amount that has been spent through non-quota measures to alleviate problems in the textile areas is £134 million. The relief for textile areas is part of the composite policy to assist shipbuilding and steel areas. The measures cover both aid to small firms and assistance to improve the physical environment.
My Department is the lead Department in deciding how those measures are administered in the areas represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and the hon. Member for Burnley. Out of the £134 million the Government have provided £74 million. It is a characteristic of the schemes that there must be a national as well as a community commitment to spend money on the problem. My hon. Friend made it clear that the textile areas in question are not just the parts of Lancashire represented by the hon. Member for Burnley, but all of Northern Ireland, Tayside, parts of west Yorkshire other parts of Lancashire and greater Manchester.
The measures for small firms were announced as a programme that would run for five years, but it was hoped that the funds would be taken up at a quicker rate than that. In some instances this has been the position. We expect that we shall be able to deliver the full amount of non-quota aid to the areas concerned well before the end of the programme.
I am aware that there have been variations in some of the textile areas, including parts of Lancashire. When there is an apparent underspend — on for example, the

business improvement services scheme, which is part of the Department's repertoire of assistance—the issue arises of possible switches from one location to another. This arises when there are underspends in one area and overspends, or higher demand, in others. The Manchester area is one example. There has been a keenness to see that there is a redistribution between Manchester and Lancashire, and a decision must be made at a time when we know that there will be an under-expenditure. My latest appraisal is that there is likely to be one, and I hope very much, therefore, that we can make a transfer. It will probably happen within the next six months, and I shall be considering carefully the benefits that that can bring to areas such as the one that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn. I am aware that certain projects have been put on ice pending clarification of whether there would be room within the scheme to allow further expenditure to take place. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that it is not a matter of saying that there are no further funds available within Lancashire to deal with textile issues. The prospects of transfer — we have to make application to the Commission — will be taken into consideration. I hope that I shall be able to make further pronouncements in a few months' time when we are certain about what the level of under-expenditure will be.
That is a reference to the expenditure that we hope to be able to make under the Department of Trade and Industry's promise, but there are infrastructural expenditures as well. I recognise that infrastructure is as important in improving the industrial environment as it is in improving the social environment. The hon. Member for Burnley has referred to Slaters terrace, which is an example, at least in part, of an improved infrastructure project. It is a demonstration of the importance of dealing with the historic consequences of the textile industry.
We have not yet decided whether we shall be able to extend the operation of BIS in more general terms. It is fairly clear from the take-up of the schemes, however, that they are of real value in providing assistance to smaller firms. The scheme is designed to ensure that the firms that are assisted are not textile firms. It embraces firms that need assistance to diversify out of textiles or to provide increased job opportunities and improved capital investment while a firm trades in other ways.
There is a real need to continue to provide assistance of this sort in textile areas, and we shall be examining closely the future of the schemes to ensure that they are refined in the light of recent experience. The schemes have attracted a great deal of support and my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall examine closely the way in which they have been used. Should there be underspend, we shall be seeking to redistribute moneys to other applicants.

Mr. Pike: I am sure that we all welcome the measures that the Minister is describing and that we are not ungrateful for them. If we are looking for improvement, however, will he consult the authorities that are involved in the running of them? Will he seek their views on what is going wrong?

Mr. Shaw: It is essential that we gain all the information possible from those who are affected directly, such as industries and companies, and from those who should have a say in the way in which their areas are developed.
I must make a distinction between Department of Trade and Industry funding and infrastructure funding. The latter is exclusively a local authority matter whereas DTI assistances are directed through my Department solely for the use of companies. Nevertheless, I accept the point that in areas of structural decline it is important that local authorities should consider that the schemes that we provide under the heading — particularly as it is European-funded—are acceptable.
Other aspects of textile structural assistance were raised, such as the whole amount of money, how it is made up, and whether it is refined and directed accurately. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn was critical. In his view, an insufficient amount reached the most affected areas. He was concerned that there would be a dissipation of assistance that is primarily directed towards industrial development in areas affected by structural decline and that it might find its way too much into inner urban area schemes that do not have that component. As the hon. Member for Burnley said, there are differences of view about whether money should be spent on one or the other. I fear to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn said, that this is where we cannot always meet what local authorities wish to do.
My concern and that of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member is to see that the schemes that relate to industrial activity and the generation of new industrial activity, such as development grants and assisted area status grant, combine with the ERDF to provide proper chance for new industrial employment developments in areas affected by structural decline. Therefore, I am less involved with the infrastructure or urban centre regeneration issues. Primarily, they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and, indeed, for the local authorities concerned.
In addition to schemes funded under the ERDF, many schemes on the ground relate directly to joint endeavours in inner city areas. One thinks of the city action groups and the urban development corporations that have been

established in some parts of Manchester and, indeed, the big development areas of Merseyside and Salford and so on, in which there is a major industrial generation as well as a major infrastructure improvement and regeneration of urban centres.
I have taken on board the remarks made by my hon. Friend expressing his concern about additionality. Although attempts have been made to resolve the matter between Government and local authorities, they have not yet borne fruit. The issue is part of the review of local authority financing as a whole. With the release of the Green Paper last year, my hon. Friend can at least take some comfort from the fact that the issue is being centrally exposed once again and, I hope, will be resolved.
On the aspects affecting the Department of Trade and Industry using this fund, I give an assurance that we certainly shall examine the possibility of redistribution from those parts of the north-west where underspends are taking place and whether those projects that are eligible, either in Hyndburn or Burnley, can still be put forward on the ground that there may well be further funds from such a redistribution. I assure my hon. Friend that I accept fully the need to ensure that there is a many-faceted approach to the areas that have suffered from structural decline. With the policies that the ERDF provides and the policies that we have put in place in other ways to assist the areas, I am sure that there will be a lot of opportunity for growth and jobs in the area.
I remind my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Burnley that, although there has been massive decline in the textile industry over many years, the actual industry that remains today is a massively successful performer. My hon. Friend will be aware that textiles now provide about 9 per cent. of manufacturing employment. Their track record in relation to performance in export markets — I think £3 billion was the last figure for the full year, 1986 — is a major achievement. Many British companies, operating either in Lancashire or, dare I say it, in west Yorkshire, are now able to look to the future with considerable confidence.

Orders of the Day — Rillington Bypass

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: The subject of my Adjournment debate is not particularly contentious, but it is important to many of my constituents.
The need for a bypass round the village of Rillington has been growing for a long time. The idea was first floated in the early 1970s when Rillington was part of the constituency of Howden. Local people became very much aware of the increasing amount of traffic passing along the A64, which goes right through the village. I understand that the national trunk road programme is being reviewed. This, therefore, seems to be a good opportunity to bring the subject of a bypass round Rillington to the notice of both the Minister and those who are involved in the decision-making process.
As far back as February 1973 a resident wrote to the then hon. Member for Howden now the hon. Member for Boothberry—about the possibility of a bypass. At that time the Rillington and Norton areas formed the northern section of the Howden constituency. Subsequently they became part of the Ryedale constituency. However, the hon. Member for Boothberry (Sir P. Bryan), replied to my constituent as follows:
I do agree with you that with the coming of bypasses for Tadcaster, York and Malton this road"—
that is the A64—
will be increasingly used, and I think the time has come to put pressure on the authorities for a bypass for Rillington.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's words. After a lapse of 14 years I certainly wish to support the pleas of the people of Rillington.
The major problem facing the village— a large one that could be regarded as the key village in the district of Ryedale because it is still expanding on both sides of the trunk road—is that there is an ever-increasing volume of traffic, much of it heavy lorries, passing through to York and west Yorkshire in one direction and to the east coast in the other direction.
The general needs for a bypass arise from this factor. They are common to all places that seek a bypass. They are noise, the hazard to pedestrians—both young and old— and the damage done to property that was not built to withstand 20th century vibrations and exhaust emissions.
The provision of traffic lights in 1982 at a very busy crossroads provided some kind of cosmetic surgery and certainly enabled residents to cross the road to the various major buildings and establishments in the village—the parish church, the local inn and the village hall—in far greater safety. It is quite a busy village street. A few yards further away are two village stores, one of which is much frequented since it also houses the local post office. Beyond them, some 100 yards down the road, is Rillington village school.
Along the main part of the trunk road there are business premises, a variety of shops, a cafe and a doctor's surgery, all of which can be a potential hazard to the free flow of traffic on what is undoubtedly a busy and much used main road. Since the A64 virtually divides the village in half, the dangers to the local population are on the increase.
An important factor that should not be forgotten when looking at the dangers caused by the existing road is the blind S-bend just beyond the crossroads to the north of the

village. In the 1960s three teenagers were killed here when an articulated lorry jack-knifed in the path of oncoming holiday traffic. There have been numerous other accidents on this bad bend. A man who had been pursued all the way from Leeds by the police crashed on this part of the road. Three years ago, in the early hours of the morning, one of the many articulated lorries that was passing through the village lost control on the bend and shed its load in the car park of the Coach and Horses inn, demolishing a brick built bottle store. It could easily have smashed into the public house.
Along the length of the village there are six side roads which join the main trunk road, plus eight gateways, 65 private drives to residents' homes and three garages. In addition, four bus stops are located in one direction and three in the other. All these are essential to the village, but each in its own different way adds to the congestion on the through road. One local councillor believes that if the life of the village is to be preserved the through traffic needs to be taken out of the village.
There is a further point. The neighbouring village of Scagglethorpe has been provided with a bypass in the last six months—to the great advantage of its community— because local people realised that the bends in the road at Scagglethorpe would cause danger to fast moving traffic leaving the new bypass at Malton. Local pressure helped to bring about the improvement to this part of the A64.
Local viewpoints should be a consideration in the case of Rillington, too. It is interesting to note that the Malton bypass, which was opened in 1978 and which brings traffic on to the Rillington section of the A64, has recently had to have major repairs done to it. On account of the amount of traffic, the road—which was planned to have a lifetime of some 20 years—has already shown signs of deterioration. It cost nearly £2 million to repair that road. The volume and size of the vehicles on the road had been seriously under-estimated by the authorities when they planned the bypass. It is estimated that at peak times some 8,000 vehicles make their way to the east coast daily, and the road has proved to be quite unable to take the strain of such heavy use.
All of those vehicles going to the coast must pass through Rillington. The village is now the sole major conurbation through which the trunk road passes before reaching the outskirts of Scarborough. Furthermore, one can travel from York or Pickering without encountering any speed restrictions until one comes into Rillington. In spite of the traffic lights, some vehicles still traverse the village in excess of the speed limit of 40 mph.
One of the excuses in the past for the non-provision of a bypass has been lack of funding. However, such strictures have not applied equally in all places. Last summer, for example, a bypass on the A64 further down the road at Seamer was approved and a start was made on the preliminary work. One might therefore naturally suppose that the problems that were suffered by Seamer were greater than those suffered by Rillington. However, that is not the case because, while all the traffic bound for the coast must pass through Rillington, it does not have to go through Seamer. Before reaching Seamer the A64 divides at the Staxton roundabout and the traffic either turns towards Seamer and Scarborough or southwards towards Filey and Bridlington. These latter towns and areas include various tourist attractions such as caravan and camp sites, and therefore take a great deal of the traffic flow. If Seamer, which sees substantially fewer


vehicles going through its streets, can be awarded a bypass, it seems that Rillington, which has carried traffic north and south of the Staxton bypass, should certainly be regarded on equal terms.
I appreciate that exact comparisons of towns are not always easy to make, but it seems a little odd that a case can be made for Seamer but not for Rillington, which obviously endures a much heavier traffic flow.
While the detailed siting of the bypass is not for consideration here, in the view of the local parish council it would best be laid to the south of the A64. Care would need to be taken with the area, including a deer park, which was laid out by the renowned Capability Brown. An ancient monument—perhaps the site of a former village—need not be interfered with and since much, though not all, of the land is poor, sandy soil the use of agricultural land would not be excessive. Compensation would be necessary for local farmers on whose land the bypass would be constructed.
The parish council took a unanimous decision to support the provision of a bypass and the majority of the residents of Rillington would be happy to see it built. A report in the local newspaper at the end of November expressed concern about traders and shops in the village. This point ought naturally to be considered, but there is an interesting corollary. In some places where a village or town has been provided with a bypass the local environment, freed from the constant flow of traffic thundering by, has been enhanced and shopping has been made easier and much more pleasurable. I see no reason why this should not apply to our very pleasant village of Rillington.
Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he had any plans for the establishment of a bypass around our North Yorkshire village of Rillington. His reply, though brief, was encouraging and I shall quote it. He said:
A review of the road programme is under way. The results will be published in the spring. I cannot comment before then."—[Official Report, 20 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 636.]
I know and the Minister knows that the vernal equinox is past. Whatever the weather may be like, spring has officially begun. Therefore, on behalf of the people of Rillington I await the Minister's reply with interest and hopeful anticipation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am delighted to be here. Actually, I am not, but I shall say that I am delighted to be here to answer the hon. Lady the Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) at this hour of the morning.
I answered the hon. Lady's question on Friday. Rillington parish council wrote to the Department in February and I think we responded to that letter and gave roughly the same answer, perhaps slightly expanded, as the answer that we gave the hon. Lady. We noted the parish council's views and the hon. Lady's views.
If I may say so gently, what the hon. Lady has said to the House might just as easily have been given straight to her local newspaper. She knows that we have to announce the roads review in one go and it would be wrong to suggest that each possible scheme for inclusion in that

review could be given either in an Adjournment debate or in a Consolidated Fund debate. If that were the case, it would probably be one scheme a week for the two years between announcements of reviews.
The hon. Lady has taken us down part of the A64 in a sort of MP's motoring tour or a pedestrian MP's walk through the post offices. Clearly, the hon. Lady made valuable points about the benefits of bypasses. She paid generous tribute to her predecessor for part of her constituency before reorganisation.
I know that my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) was involved in Rillington and talked to me about it on previous occasions. He also talked about his work in Malton and about some of the other bypasses. I must confess to a family link, because for many years one of my cousins was the Member of Parliament for Thirsk and Malton and ended up as Father of the House.
The hon. Lady will understand if I do not give any more detailed information about the road prospects of Rillington. She knows that we are considering them. I shall now speak more generally.
Earlier today— if that is the right parliamentary expression for something that happened nearly 24 hours ago—I went up past Yorkshire to Durham and opened a small industrial access road at Aycliffe. It is a road that involved small-scale spending. It is not a trunk road and was built using taxpayers' money, county council money and help from the development corporation. It will take through traffic away from residential areas. In essence, that is what bypasses are about.
I went on through various villages where through traffic was travelling too fast and saw the excellent work carried out by the surveyor and his staff in Durham. I am sure the same thing applies in Yorkshire. By going in for low-cost engineering, the county surveyor has been able to reduce traffic speeds without having to rely on police officers waiting behind every lamp post.
The self-enforcing measures of traffic engineering make a great difference to the number of casualties on our roads. I will not describe as accidents all the injuries and deaths on the roads, because many of them are predictable. The hon. Lady referred to the tragedy of a jack-knifed lorry and also to a person who was trying to get away from the police. There is an obligation to pay as much attention to low-cost engineering, including small scale bypasses, where the elderly and children are moving across residential or through roads, whether in a community of 800 people or in the inner cities where tens of thousands are going about the streets.
On my tour I went on to Bishop Auckland. By taking the through traffic out of the main traffic area there, the shopping facilities regenerated. The hon. Lady referred to some fears in Rillington about what might happen if a bypass comes. I can confirm that most people find overall benefit by having the through traffic out.
I then went on to Durham itself, where people still regale visitors with stories of the policeman sitting in his box below the cathedral and getting traffic from Silver street around the corner. In Durham they had a special hand signal—I do not know how this will go down in the Official Report—which meant, "I intend to go around you, Mr. Policeman, and go up the road just to your right or left," depending on the way you looked at it. All these


things that I have seen in Durham and in most counties do lead to reductions in casualties and to a greater chance of economic prosperity.
I want to say something— without being unnecessarily partisan—about why some bypasses have not been brought forward as fast as others. The hon. Lady rightly referred to a shortage of money. In the period 1974 to 1979, national money for new roads was cut exactly in half in real terms. That was not a period when the Labour party ruled by itself; it was also the time of the understanding with the Liberal party. Since 1979 it has been possible to add funds to national road spending— from which funds for a Rillington bypass would come, if it is added to the national roads programme.
It is always possible for some Opposition Members to say— I acknowledge that the hon. Lady does not say this— that they believe in infrastructure spending. The plain truth is that the infrastructure spending— the Prime Minister and I call that roads and bridges—has increased under this Government and had decreased under the previous Government. Many bypasses which had been in the programme, and on which very little work had been done up to 1979. were shelved because there was too much work to be done and not enough money. Since then we have managed to pull hack most of the shelved schemes, and that has been greatly appreciated by many communities.
The hon. Lady raised the importance of environmental relief that can be given by a bypass in Rillington. Some people say that no more roads should be built and that people should move to the trains. This is undemocratic and an example of losing sight of equality of opportunity. Most people driving in cars, especially in the cities, are male and white. Many people become so well-off that they can afford to give up their cars, especially if they can live within walking distance of a station.
But many other people, such as the low-paid— of whom there are many in the hon. Lady's constituency— women and members of minority groups in the inner cities, need or wish to have a car. Of the more than 3 million learner drivers in this country, 2 million are women, and many of them want to have cars and to be able to drive around.
It was well said by a woman at the Friends of the Earth meeting that I went to on Thursday that it is all very well for a well-off dependant-free male to say that cars are not necessary, but he should try being the parent of five children, having a job, doing the shopping, looking after elderly parents, and trying to be in three places at the same time. It is often convenient, in such circumstances, to be able to travel around by car, although, no matter how much one needs to be in two places at the same time, obeying the speed limit is important. I think that the hon. Lady will agree that, although one does not want to take everybody off public transport and put them unnecessarily into individual cars, one wants to make provision so that more people can have the individual mobility that a car can give.
I have talked around the important subject that the hon. Lady has raised in a way that brings in all the i important issues. The north-east can get economic benefits from a better road system. In Yorkshire, and especially in Durham, the major road system is substantially better

than in other parts of the country. That is a reflection of the Hailsham initiative of 25 years ago. There are still improvements to be made, and the hon. Lady drew attention to one bypass.
Economic prosperity and employment opportunities come from better communications. That does not only mean roads. As I was saying to a number of councillors today, the Channel tunnel will help more goods to be moved on the railways. It is commonly estimated that in normal terms, a freight journey of 250 miles or more is better suited to the railways than to the roads. With through rail links to the rest of the European Community, especially to the parts that lead on to the south coast of England, fewer unnecessary heavy goods may pass on our roads, with or without bypasses, and that will be generally welcome.
The second reason is the environmental improvement. The environment does not just mean protecting the countryside, although that is important. Nobody wants to cover the whole of the countryside with concrete or tarmacadam unnecessarily. There is the importance of restoring the environment in the built-up areas, whether villages such as Rillington or the thousands of households living on some of the established through routes in London and other large cities and towns.
There is also casualty reduction. As the hon. Lady will no doubt agree, a road that is purpose-built for the levels of traffic that we are experiencing, and those that we need to anticipate, can reduce road casualties dramatically. Low-cost engineering is important, and I announced a new London Transport traffic advisory leaflet earlier today giving examples of how traffic can be throttled back or kept out of residential areas. Bypasses do the same thing. Adding to our motorway network in a reasonable way between our towns and cities also helps, as does getting rid of unnecessary access to major trunk roads. Having the money to go for grade separated junctions rather than having crossroads on the main roads also helps.
Our stewardship of the country's transport interests has been pretty good. I would not claim that it is perfect, but we try to balance the priorities. When we announce the review of the roads programme, people will come to see, give or take a bit of partisanship, the benefits for local communities. There are natural consequences of our single-Member constituency system. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady would be arguing for Rillington just as much as one Member would in a multi-Member constituency, but there are advantages in having every village, every street and every block of flats represented by a Member of Parliament. Without that, the community might be looking to see who will take up the issue of the bypass.
As well as the roads and railways, it is worth saying that our public transport arrangements seem to be working. pretty well. The last time that I spent more than about an hour in the hon. Lady's constituency was during the by-election campaign, when we heard about how the buses would disappear under deregulations. I am glad that she was able to share champagne in opening one of the new services. Like her, I look forward to seeing whether Rillington joins the roads review programme. I know that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not adding to the comprehensive answer that I gave her last Friday.

Orders of the Day — Devonport Dockyard

Mr. Robert Hicks: It is not my intention to repeat the various arguments that have been deployed both in favour of and against the Government's proposals for the introduction of a system of commercial management in the royal dockyards. As the House will know, I have remained very dubious. I consider the concept of agency management to be speculative and non proven since there is no comparable economic model on the scale envisaged anywhere in the world. Since the function of the Royal dockyards is to service the Royal Navy, I believe that it is wrong to pursue this particular course of action since it is the defence of the nation and the security of the realm that we are considering. Nevertheless, we must now accept that Parliament has given its approval to the Government's intentions and, indeed, vesting day for the new management structures is only days away. Only time will tell whether my fears are justified.
What is not in dispute, however, is the fact that there will be substantial job opportunity reductions over the next four years in the dockyards. During the past two years, for example, approximately 2,000 jobs have been lost at Devonport, principally through early retirement and voluntary redundancies. I wish to emphasise at this stage that most people recognised that changes were necessary in the organisation and administration of the royal dockyards and that their manpower requirements would decline. Devonport was given an enhanced status by the Government. Nevertheless, I accept that the Royal Navy now has fewer ships, those ships require fewer refits and the refits can be completed in a shorter time. However, it has already been announced that, taking the present employment level at Devonport as being 11,000 people, there will be 2,300 further job losses over the period 18 months to three years ahead and there may be a further 1,500 job opportunities lost after April 1990.
In addition, some 350 civilian jobs have been lost during the past two years in outside departments that serve the naval base and a further 200 are likely to be lost over the next three years. Further, when calculating the job losses in an area, allowance has to be made for the local multiplier effect, which it is estimated could be over 1,000 people in the Plymouth travel-to-work area. That means that in total we will almost certainly see our job opportunities in the Plymouth sub-region decline by over 5,500 by 1990 solely as a consequence of the reduced manpower requirements in Devonport dockyard. That is a pretty depressing outlook.
Sadly the story does not end there. Because of the subdued levels of economic activity that are reflected in the higher than average unemployment levels, Plymouth and east Cornwall already have assisted area status. However, if one considers the level of national financial support for assisted areas, the south-west assisted area is bottom of the league table. We have received a total of £2·2 million of regional aid since November 1984 when the new regional support measures were introduced. Expressed as a payment per head of the population, that works out at £22·89 per head in the region's development area, and £3·99 per head in the region's intermediate area, which includes Plymouth and east Cornwall.
It is interesting to note that the comparable figure for Wales, that is to say, the total support provided through regional aid, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, is £112 million. If one considers Scotland, again taking the aggregate amount of regional aid, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency, the equivalent figure is £180 million. However, when average weekly earning levels are considered, Scotland's average earnings are 98·8 per cent. of the national average. The comparable Welsh figure is 93·3 per cent., but those for Devon and Cornwall are 86 per cent. and 83·2 per cent. of the national average respectively.
It is right to draw the attention of the House to those two sets of figures of the extent of regional aid and average earnings to remind the Minister of the economic backcloth against which the impact of those job opportunity reductions at Devonport should be perceived.
I turn now to the action that needs to be taken, involving Government, local authorities, the European Community and statutory organisations, such as English Industrial Estates and the Manpower Services Commission to minimise the adverse effects that will undoubtedly be the result, in economic and social terms, of the projected rundown in jobs at Devonport.
I intend to list a package of measures, which merits the Government's consideration, to alleviate the sub-region's difficulties. First, 1 should like to emphasise above all else, the urgency of this matter. It is now two years since my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Defence, published his consultative document on the future of the Royal dockyards. The implications for our region were clear then. However, although the impression was given then that initiatives would be forthcoming to minimise that impact, few tangible results have materialised. The commitment made by the former Secretary of State to release the Royal William yard for redevelopment for tourism and commercial and residential purposes is just one example of that inertia.
Of course, I recognise that, through their local authorities, local communities have a responsibility. In recent years the city of Plymouth has promoted several of its own economic initiatives. No doubt that will be confirmed subsequently. Those initiatives include new workshops and workspaces, high tech units, industrial estates, skill training initiatives, promotion, support to companies, business advice and so on. The amount that they have found is probably in excess of £11 million. In addition, there is a £3 million investment at the Plymouth airport to provide better communication links with the rest of the country. Most of these initiatives are showing signs of success.
In east Cornwall the Caradon district council in conjunction with Antony Estates is well advanced with its proposals to redevelop the 22-acre site formerly occupied by the shore base HMS Fisgard at Torpoint. About seven acres are designated for industrial purposes. The Government could immediately help Plymouth city council, Cornwall county council and the Caradon district council in two ways in their endeavours.
First, the Government could release capital receipts for investment purposes. I appreciate that this is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister. But I make no apology for reminding him as a member of the


Government that a Government-imposed restriction prevents those three local authorities from making a positive contribution in this way at this time.
Secondly, the Minister has departmental responsibility for this specific and immediate local authority initiative. I refer to applications which local authorities can make for financial assistance under article 15 of the European Regional Development Fund main regulation. As my hon. Friend is aware, Cornwall made two applications in January 1986: one relating to tourism and the other directly to business promotion. The financial aid sought for those two projects totals almost £1 million, but for the past 15 months the Treasury has refused to sanction those applications. That is not good enough. Furthermore, I am certain that the Plymouth city council would take advantage of this source of potential European finance once the Treasury ban was lifted. I hope that the Minister can give the House some information on this particular front when he replies this evening.
I shall mention six areas of assistance which are the prerogative of Government. First, the Minister will not be surprised if I mention the need for the creation of a Devon and Cornwall development agency. That is central and crucial to the region's economic future. I will not repeat the arguments tonight. I have explained in statistical terms that we are a sub-region characterised by higher than average levels of unemployment and significantly lower than average levels of income. We also receive lower levels of regional aid than comparable United Kingdom regions, and lack a variety of job opportunities with a consequential absence of career structures. A regional development agency could do much to redress those inherent weaknesses.
Secondly, English Industrial Estates should become involved and adopt a forward-rolling programme in the Plymouth travel-to-work area. It is suggested that land availability may be a problem in Plymouth. I am not certain of the precise position, but I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no shortage of land on the Cornish side of the river Tamar at Saltash and Torpoint. Sites are available adjacent to the Saltash bypass which is under construction and that should be a natural growth point. I have already mentioned the potential for industrial development of the Fisgard site at Torpoint.
Thirdly, I want to mention the important subject of training and re-training facilities. Clearly the Manpower Services Commission has a major responsibility in that respect. I hope that additional courses and places will be made available to take account of the changing pattern of employment opportunities in the Plymouth sub-region. There is another essentially local dimension that relates to the dockyard's training scheme. The new contractors are to take over that function, but I gather that the training school will not be fully utilised. That surely provides an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their commitment by underwriting the cost of the additional training so that excellent facility can be used to the maximum.
Fourthly, the business improvement services scheme which is already established in Cornwall should be expanded and extended to Plymouth. The scheme is very cost effective and should be encouraged.
Fifthly, I want to advocate the establishment of a specific fund for the sub-region to provide finance for small firms. We all know the problems that smaller and often newer companies experience in raising capital for

essential investment. The creation of a locally administered fund is essential if sufficient new employment opportunities are to be created significantly to offset the dockyard job losses. There are precedents for that. Special assistance has been made available by the Government in other areas where major closures have taken place largely as a result of Government action. These include Chatham, Swindon, steel and coal closure areas and the Scottish Development Agency area initiatives.
Sixthly, I must mention the question of the area's assisted area status. I believe that I am correct to state that the Plymouth travel-to-work area is the only assisted area that is currently being reviewed. I hope that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest this evening on that specific issue by confirming our status as an assisted area.
I conclude by again stressing the urgency of the situation, which could rapidly deteriorate. We now have a period of 15 months maximum to introduce a package of measures designed to alleviate the adverse effects resulting from the reduction in manpower requirements of the Plymouth sub-region's largest single employer.
We all, of course, have an obligation to create art environment conducive to attracting suitable new industry to our areas and an obligation to stimulate existing business activities. I do not exaggerate however when state that it is the very economic and social structure of Plymouth and east Cornwall that is at stake. That is the extent of the problem and challenge that all of us who live and work in the Plymouth and east Cornwall area currently face.

Dr. David Owen: At 5.49 am, many families in Plymouth and the surrounding area are getting up and starting to go to Devonport dockyard. It seems not inappropriate, given the problems that they will face, that I should be here to draw the Government's attention to the devastating effect of their policies on the city and the sub-region.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) has made a sound case, and I did not disagree with one word of what he said. His estimate of 5,500 job opportunities being lost by 1990 is realistic. It may even prove to be slightly optimistic. If we add the likely knock-on effect, we are talking of 7,000 to 8,000 job opportunities being lost in five to six years.
The effect will be massive because the job losses are concentrated on male industrial employment—the very job opportunities which are immensely hard to replace. matters were gloomy enough as a result of the damage that the Government have wrought on the Plymouth travel-to-work area because of what is happening at Devonport dockyard, but we have had to cope with the further blow of the closure of Texas Instruments.
I understand the downturn in the world economy which made Texas Instruments' decision inevitable. I pay tribute to the company, which has contributed a good deal to the city. We must not be frightened of attracting high technology firms just because of that unfortunate experience. The city has gone through this before with Rank Radio, only to see the losses there replaced by Toshiba investment. We also look forward to the opening of the Plessey factory soon.
The city council has done a good deal on an all-party basis to attract industry, and it is set to do more. Just to stand still, it is ncessary to attract three or four major new


factories each year. Now, to stand still during the next five years, that capacity to attract new investment to the city and its immediate surrounds will have to be substantially increased.
With the best will in the world and the greatest local endeavour, that cannot be done without more help and without the Government facing up to the consequences of their decisions, co-ordinating governmental activities and giving Plymouth and the surrounding area a chance to replace the jobs that are to be lost.
The hon. Gentleman is right: there was hope two years ago when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) announced his intention to accompany what is to happen at Devonport with a series of Government actions which would anticipate the misery that was to be visited on the city in terms of job opportunities. It is fair to say that precisely nothing has come from the Government in terms of special help to offset the devastation of what is to happen to the dockyard. Not one jot extra has come to Plymouth.
The Royal William yard has been mentioned. I always thought that a certain flamboyance was not unassociated with the right hon. Member for Henley when he announced that great venture. The city council responded and was ready to co-operate until it became clear that it was being asked to take over the massive costs of retaining a historic building which, we all agree, must be retained, but with none of the supporting finance which was vital.
That project was dangled before the city, only to be shown to be a rotten apple as soon as we examined it. If that prospect is to be revived, it must be accompanied by substantial financial assistance, and the Department of the Environment should not find it too difficult to do that. It is a magnificent building that must be retained on historic grounds, but it cannot be retained by the city council alone. The potential is there, but there must be an injection of new money to make it viable.
We have been urging the Government, even within the limitations of their miserable regional policies, to take extra measures, and one that is open to Ministers to take would be to declare parts of Plymouth—and the badly affected, rather rundown area of Cattdown, which could be revived, especially the port on the Plym—some parts of Cornwall around Saltash, and even some parts of Devon, on the outskirts of the city, an enterprise zone with the advantages of being such a zone.
The Government have introduced an enterprise zone regional policy, and while there are serious criticisms of some parts of that policy, it would have given us extra help to attract industry. I have been pushing this case since the enterprise zones were announced, but without success. Indeed, there has not seemed to be the remotest possibility of the Government agreeing, though I hope tonight the Minister will prove me wrong.
Given the antipathy of the Government to the creation of new development agencies, it seems unlikely that they will do what I have no doubt must be done, which is to recognise the case for a far south-west development agency based in Cornwall. I do not believe one can argue a purely constituency case on this issue.
If the centre of gravity, so to speak, of such an agency were not in the county that was most affected by low wages and unemployment, it would not carry conviction, and the city of Plymouth must be sufficiently broad-minded to

recognise that the location of the headquarters should be in Cornwall. It must embrace Plymouth, plus probably the whole or a substantial part of Devon, so that the two shire counties, and that great borough—hopefully with more of its rights restored to it—would be the focus for such a region.
It is senseless to continue with the south-west economic region as we have it at present, with parts of Bristol being closer to London than parts of Cornwall are close to Bristol. The whole region needs to be re-thought. At least the European Community recognises Devon and Cornwall as a sub-region for statistical and other purposes and has accepted that it has indigenous problems which are unrelated to the rest of the south-west region. We have seen that with the decline of the Cornish tin industry, with the difficulties of the fishing industry and with the problems of milk farming in terms of that industry being productive.
While there is no hope of the Government creating a development agency, they would be well advised to participate in the exercise which the Alliance has started in the south-west region on the specifics and mechanics of a development agency. I will send our proposals to the Minister, and I look forward to receiving his comments on them.
Other problems need tackling. The airport has been extended and that has represented a remarkable partnership between Brymon Airways and the council, and the council is to be congratulated for investing in that. In that and in other matters the council has done as much as one could reasonably expect from a district council, as it now is following the lamentable reorganisation of local government. That reorganisation was a body blow inflicted on the city of Plymouth by the right hon. Member for Henley in the early 1970s in a former ministerial incarnation.
To attract new industry, it would be a great help in selling the city's wares if we could point to a highly skilled work force. We shall have that in the short term because people will have been able to utilise the training that they have been given in the Devonport dockyard. But it will have to be replenished by the Manpower Services Commission recognising that the dockyard apprentice training school is a precious resource that will be under-utilised by Brown and Root. It is unreasonable to expect Brown and Root to take on a commitment to train more than can be justified on a likely future work load of the dockyard. But it would be reasonable for the MSC to undertake to contract out an extra 70 to 100 places in the dockyard apprentice training school to use that as a skill training resource and to give us at least the skill capacity to absorb new investment.
Devon, Cornwall and Plymouth have hesitantly, but at long last, started to collaborate to market the city's wares. A major Government grant is necessary to give that limited, but nevertheless important, grouping some of the financial support necessary for them to go out into the world markets of the United States, France, Italy the Scandinavian countries and Japan, to seek the new inward investment which the city of Plymouth must win. It is difficult to do so in competition with the Welsh and Scottish development agencies with a substantial supported export capacity and overseas marketing capacity. This modest claim is compatible with at least some aspects of the Government's regional framework.
There is no doubt that understanding the importance of the polytechnic and the role that it has played and continues to play in the sub-region is extremely important. I am worried about the cuts affecting higher education. I hope that it will be well understood in the Department of Education and Science, and through it the MSC and the Government machine generally, that the polytechnic needs to be built up. A good deal more imagination needs to be shown by the Government in helping through the royal naval engineering school at Manadon and the polytechnic. Perhaps there could he help for the research establishments—they are now under the constraints imposed on almost all the research councils—to build up the experience and expertise of Plymouth in all the maritime sciences. That would be easy to do because the marine biology laboratory has a worldwide reputation.
Those are positive suggestions, but there is one absolute fundamental—the still dominant position of the Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency in relation to land. I believe that another foolish decision was taken by the Ministry of Defence in holding on to Mountbatten land. It was a perfect site for a tourist development. It is folly that, when the Ministry of Defence is straining to live within its present budget the Royal Air Force, presumably predominantly, and the other armed services have been able to keep their hands on Mountbatten. I blame Ministers for not overriding the well-known instinct of the Ministry of Defence to hold what it has. Mountbatten was a prime site. If ever there was a case for allowing commercial market forces to operate to build up a tourist facility for Plymouth, it was to release Mountbatten and put it on the market. Despite that decision I hope that the Ministry of Defence will reconsider.
We must also consider the whole of the massive sea front that the dockyard has traditionally held right up the Tamar. A fundamental aspect of the new-style dockyard must be the rationalisation of its land. I already begin to detect all the old arguments about why the dockyard must hold on to what it has. We have precious little prime industrial site on deep-water moorings and some of that dockyard land must be made available, and fast, for industrial development.
The very least that we could get out of this debate is a commitment for an open study involving the city council, Devon council and if necessary, Cornwall. It is important that the city council, independent outside experts and the Minister of Defence should re-examine, in public, every part of Government land held in the city of Plymouth and whether it could he made available. That study could consider whether the land has the capacity for the development of tourism—increasingly important in the region—or whether it could be made available for industrial sites.
It is no use for that study to be undertaken privately in Whitehall, and it is no use the Ministry of Defence privately putting forward arguments as why it will not part with the land. We want an open, public inquiry, preferably with an independent chairman, in which the Minister must justify holding on to all the land. It represents the crucial key to unlock the city in the decades ahead.
The decision about Devonport has been an appalling blow for the city—I do not believe that Ministers understand how bad it is. Very well, the Ministry has the power—there is no use arguing the case—it will carry through its decision. However, I believe that agency

management is fundamentally flawed and that that decision will be reversed. I believe that it will be necessary to bring this great industry together to unify and integrate the assets controlled by the Ministry of Defence. It will also be necessary to unify the work force and management that has been put out to agency management. This is for after the election. It is the minimum price—a Government-controlled PLC, operating at Devonport as an integrated, unified industrial enterprise.
I believe that it is of fundamental importance that the Government recognise the need for a development agency for Devon, Cornwall and Plymouth. It is critical that in the Government's reappraisal of what needs to be done for the city of Plymouth a greater understanding is given to how much the city has focused its cultural and social, let alone its industrial and economic life, around the Royal Navy. There is a great responsibility, in moral and historic terms, to recognise that that orientation of the city has been fundamentally changed.
Had that change been undertaken with understanding and sympathy, that transition could have occurred without the trauma, heartbreak and personal grief that now looks inevitable. If that transition were handled with sympathy and care future generations might even say that the undue dependence of the city on the dockyard was ended for the city's long-term good. There is no sign to show that the Government have anticipated the industrial damage that will be done, no sign of the Government responding to alleviate some of the damage that is being inflicted by one arm of Government, the Ministry of Defence, on the economy of the city and the sub-region.
If this debate has done anything I hope that it will concentrate Minister's minds on the fact that they have not lived up to the commitments that they undertook and the general atmosphere that they generated two years ago when the impression was given to the city that it would be helped to overcome the devastating effects of the rundown of the Devonport dockyard.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: The debate illustrates one of the fundamental weaknesses of our system of government. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for about £9 billion worth of procurement and it takes decisions of an industrial nature to the exclusion of, and without any consideration of, the social consequences. In many respects, it leaves it to the Department of Trade and Industry to pick up the pieces. I have a certain sympathy with the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry for having to clear up the mess that the privatisation by the Ministry will create in Plymouth and south-east Cornwall.

Mr. Gordon Brown: And Rosyth.

Mr. O'Neill: Indeed. Many of the arguments that have been advanced on behalf of Plymouth and the surrounding area can be advanced for Rosyth. The impact of privatisation will lead to a reduction in the labour force, which will have an impact on the economy of Fife. The Scottish dockyard may have the advantage of the services of the Industry Department within the Scottish Office, the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland, but with all these estimable institutions we still have unacceptably high unemployment in Scotland.
I wish to concentrate on the plight of Plymouth. The House has a responsibility to those who live in the area,


not least because the Devonport dockyard is the largest employer and is the hub of the industrial economy, such as it is, in that part of Britain. The job loss figures given by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) have been confirmed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). We are talking of 5,500 jobs, and probably nearer 8,000 when account is taken of the multiplier effect. Job losses of that scale would have a devastating effect on any economy, but the dockyard in Plymouth is the major industrial employer and the major trainer of labour. Within a few years it is likely that skills will not be applied. Skills will be lost or not acquired because of the rundown in the training function and the training centre within the dockyard. The impact of privatisation will be considerable on those employed directly within the dockyard and on small privately owned firms which hitherto have worked in partnership with the publicly owned dockyard. The prospects of work for the dockyard are, to say the least, somewhat gloomy.
Last week's Jane's Defence Weekly contained a report on the private dockyard in the form of Tyne Shiprepair and Plymouth, Devonport and the outfitting and refitting of Arethusa and Euryalus. I raise the issue because it demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws in the Government's approach to employment creation and industrial policy. The Government seem concerned to reshuffle unemployed people around the country so that there is a temporary remission for Tyneside.
The refitting of the Euryalus was directed to Tyne Shiprepair, which has had the effect of reducing the work load of Devonport. It was a complex scheme for the refitting of two frigates. The Devonport work was completed in about 38 weeks, whereas the Tyne Shiprepair work took about 11 weeks longer. Jane's Defence Weekly apportioned part of the blame to the Ministry of Defence. It has been suggested that about 20 per cent. more work was involved in the Tyne Shiprepair job and that it may well have been carried out at a lower price. Of course, that matter is not open to us. The steel shutters immediately fall when we talk about price. We enter an area of confidentiality that confuses the question whether the privatisation exercise or agency management will be successful. As far as one can see, the Devonport dockyard appears to come out of the latest scheme comparatively favourably.
The continuation of the Devonport dockyard is, certainly at the moment, beyond question. Many of us are concerned about the climate that will prevail in the dockyard over the coming weeks and months. We shall see agency management in the period up to the general election and a change in the system of management of the dockyard. Certainly there is the widespread suspicion on the part of Brown and Root of the former owner, Halliburton, and its associations with the Libyan Government. In the Secretary of State's latest letter to the unions he does not rule out the possibility of an American director.
When one considers the impact of an agency management on Plymouth and the surrounding area, one must take account of the climate of opinion and morale within the dockyard. We must make sure that that once proud yard does not become too depressed. I am certain that the quality of work will be sustained, but morale manifests

itself in a variety of ways in industrial establishments. The Government must bear a responsibility for the depressing effect that will certainly be felt thoughout the sub-region.
Local councillors have shown their support for various initiatives that have already been taken by Plymouth city council. It is significant that Plymouth city council—a Conservative council—has been at the forefront of the campaign to secure economic regeneration for the area. The most successful parts of regional policy elsewhere in the country have been listed. Given the present climate in which we live, I suspect that any gains that come to Plymouth and the surrounding areas—I wish them well—will more probably than not come at the expense of other parts of the county. My understanding-perhaps the Minister will confirm it—is that the regional review procedures have been completed. I understand that there is not likely to be any change in development area status for any area or another review of the boundaries for some time to come.
It will take a change of Government to bring about a change of priorities. Certainly, when the Labour party come to power, we shall overturn the agency management scheme and restore full public ownership of the dockyard. We recognise that that is the first step. We recognise, too, that other forms of assistance for the disadvantaged areas of the country will have to be introduced. A regional development agency would be a step in the right direction.

Dr. Owen: This is not a trick question; I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in the problem. He referred to public ownership. Does he mean that the dockyard will be returned to the Civil Service, or does he envisage some of the newer types of public ownership that have been discussed recently by the Labour party?

Mr. O'Neill: The right hon. Gentleman has followed this debate as closely as I have over the years. He knows that the Labour party's commitment is to a Government-owned plc. That is the preferred option. It would provide a degree of financial control and financial discipline. That has been one of the difficulties. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, in his previous incarnation as a Minister, instituted review schemes. Had it not been for the general election in 1970, other systems might have been established.
The Labour party would establish a Government-owned plc. That would provide opportunities for improvements in both management and efficiency and for the maximisation of the opportunities that such a massive industrial undertaking affords. We should support local authority initiatives. Local regional assistance can lead to too much bureaucracy. Appropriate agencies can work in conjunction with Departments that have responsibility for Wales and Scotland, but that does not mean that there have to be similar arrangements for every region. We should fully support Plymouth city council and would seek to back its initiatives, which enjoy the overwhelming support of all sections of the community. The Conservative majority group on Plymouth city council is at one with its traditional political opponents in seeking to minimise the damage that this hare-brained scheme of agency management will inflict on the community.
The Labour party has welcomed this opportunity to refer to the serious problems that will face this part of the south-west. The Government's palliatives are not commensurate with the amount of damage that will


probably be inflicted. It is difficult for such a fragile economy to sustain the loss of 8,000 jobs in a relatively short period. The only realistic prospect of solving these difficulties would be the return to power of a Labour Government at the earliest opportunity. In the first instance, a Labour Government would put an end to agency management. They would also seek to restore morale in the dockyard's work force and to provide the kind of training and infrastructure that the area requires. They would work with the agencies and organisations in the area that are seeking to secure prosperity once again for this part of England.
As a Scot, I know that London must seem remote because of its distance from that part of the south-west. It is just as remote from the people in the south-west as it is from those who live north of the Tweed. I have every sympathy with that part of England. I say to those who will be reading reports of this debate outside the House—the galleries are not exactly packed at the moment—that, as with other parts of the country such as Scotland and Wales, the only way to support and protect depressed areas is to elect Labour Members of Parliament so that we can carry out the process of industrial and social construction which this hare-brained scheme has highlighted in this part of England.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) on raising this issue. The debate has been well attended, with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) showing his commitment to the region. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoke about the return of a Labour Government, which was not the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East was looking for. The presence throughout the debate of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is an indication of the genuine concern that the Government feel about this issue. They believe that it is important, that it should be looked at with great care and that solutions should be found.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East will not he surprised to hear that it is difficult for me to share his views on the changes in policy which have led to the decisions that have been taken on the dockyards. He has heard from several of my hon. Friends that we believe that his worries about this change of policy are unfounded. The Government believe that either of the other options that were considered for the dockyards—a trading fund, or a Government-owned plc, which is the option that is favoured by the hon. Member for Clackmannan—promised less for the Royal Navy, the taxpayer and the employees in the regions in which the dockyards are located.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East will know that over the past 15 years or more successive Governments have been concerned about the system under which the dockyards have operated, and a number of studies have been carried out. We have never pretended that all of the studies have reached the same conclusion, and much less have we suggested that they have argued for the policy that we have now decided to follow. There has been general agreement that there should be significant changes. Despite the fact that the studies that were carried

out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) found that there was a crisis in the dockyards, the system has remained largely unchanged for a long time.
That was the background against which the 1985 review took place. The aims were simply to get the best value for the part of the defence budget that is spent on refitting and repairing the naval vessels; to improve the efficiency of the two dockyards; to maximise the degree of competition between the dockyards and the ship repair industry; to separate the customer—the Navy—from the supplier—the dockyards; and to introduce new work into the dockyards to offset job losses that would otherwise result from the decline of the naval refit and repair programme.
That is the context in which my hon. Friend raised these issues. They have been debated on a number of occasions in the House, and our view remains that the aims that we set ourselves will best be met by introducing commercial management.
As the subject of the debate is regional policy, I shall say something about the background to the Navy Board's comments on job losses. The ship work programme is declining. Over the next seven years the impact of the overall reduction in load will be on Devonport. There are several reasons for the decline, including the fact that the more modern warships and nuclear powered submarines require less regular refit and repair work to be carried out.
However, two matters are certain. First, the decline has nothing to do with commercial management; it would have occurred under any form of management. Secondly, there is no truth in the story engendered by Opposition Members that we have encouraged the engineering standards to be lowered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has estimated that if dockyards had been retained under more direct managment, for example, with nothing but naval work on which to rely, there would have been a reduction in the work force at Devonport alone of some 5,000 over the next seven years, and some 4,500 of that number would have occurred in the first four years.
Devonport Management Ltd, with which my right hon. Friend signed a contract in respect of Devonport on 24 February, has estimated job losses totalling about 2,300 by 1990. The company hopes to balance the reductions by an extensive retraining programme, by natural wastage, voluntary redundancies and early retirements. However, in 1987 selective recruitment will be necessary and the company estimates that 125 to 150 apprentices will be recruited. Devonport Management Ltd. intends to develop locally the skilled human resources required for the future success of the dockyard.
Neither my hon. Friend and Member for Cornwall, South-East nor the right hon. Member for Devonport or anybody else would welcome any reduction in the local labour force. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that by developing new commercial activities based on the considerable expertise and capacity at Devonport the new management should, with co-operation and good will on both sides, be better placed to exploit the opportunities that clearly must exist for growth in the enterprise.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues about the consequences of regional policy on what is now happening. I shall deal first with assisted or intermediate area status for Plymouth. In November 1984 my Department granted the Plymouth travel-to-work area


intermediate status in recognition of Plymouth's importance as the principal industrial centre in the extreme south-west and because of the need to encourage employment and economic growth.
The Government are presently considering the submission prepared by Plymouth city council for the travel-to-work area status to be retained after November 1987. The hon. Member for Clackmannan raised this issue. It is peculiar to Plymouth because the arrangement that was made by the European Commission at the time was for three years only. Hence, there is this review of the Plymouth position. The hon. Member was quite right when he said that there was no other review currently in progress which affects the assisted area plan.
The proposal by Plymouth will be urgently considered by my Department and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East that it will be forwarded to the European Commission whose agreement we obviously require in order to continue the intermediate area status for Plymouth. The present agreement expires in November and we intend to ensure that action is taken as soon as possible. I can tell my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Devonport that I fully support in principle the case that the council has made for the continuation of Plymouth's intermediate area status. I hope that the case will be referred to the Commission at the end of this month or in early April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East was critical of the amounts being spent on regional assistance in the south-west in general and in Plymouth in particular. I understand the feelings of all hon. Members who represent areas, whether assisted or not, that are clearly deprived who believe that insufficient funds are being made available. However, since 1984 regional selective assistance of over £2·6 million has been paid by my Department for projects worth £21 million that are expected to create or safeguard more than 1,000 jobs in the Plymouth area alone.
Plymouth currently enjoys assisted area status and has obviously benefited from ERDF assistance with the development of industrial areas and new initiatives. Plymouth also receives urban programme support for new projects from the Department of the Environment and the 1987–88 allocation is £360,000. Of course, regional assistance spreads beyond that in the south-west and I know that my hon. Friend fully recognises that.
The amount of regional assistance to the south-west since 1979 is about £33 million with which 11,898 jobs have been created and a further 1,700 safeguarded. About £78 million of regional development grant has been expended in the south-west alone. That has created a further 3,150 jobs. While understanding my hon. Friend's view that more could be done, I must tell him that substantial sums to generate activity in the south-west in general and in Plymouth in particular have been spent during the Government's term of office.
I turn to the development of an agency for Devon and Cornwall. The right hon. Member for Devonport raised this matter—not for the first time in my presence—which he studies so keenly. I do not presently support the view that an agency could be the right solution for that part of the country. A combined effort must be made by the major counties of Devon and Cornwall to produce the necessary initiative to attract more investment to the far

south-west. I fully support the recent development of the Devon and Cornwall development bureau and I hope that it will be widely supported in that region.
It has not been easy to get the degree of joint commitment and collaboration that is fundamental and essential for an active regional development organisation. We have increased grants to the development bureau to £320,000 for the promotion of inward investment in the south-west. I trust that it will be encouraged by this modest gesture to obtain a broader basis of support and to develop more joint policies which could attract investment. But it is a late development.
The right hon. Member for Devonport, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East, said that the area deserves the special focus and urgent treatment that is implied in the change for the dockyard. My hon. Friend listed six issues. The question of the article 15 application has been of concern to him for some time, and I share that concern. Article 15 applications have significant public expenditure implications. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering urgently the policy on the treatment of article 15 applications, and I hope that an announcement will be made soon on resolving that dispute.
I accept that English Estates should undertake a full programme in the area, and I shall take a close interest in its policies for the Plymouth area and the south-west. I accept that in the coming year it may have a role in enabling the opportunity for development of industrial sites to be progressed. My Department cannot be wholly responsible for training generally, but I will ensure that my hon. Friends in the Department of Employment consider the point.
The business improvement scheme is widely accepted as a form of assistance, especially for small businesses. My hon. Friend recommends that the scheme should be extended to Plymouth. There will be no further European Community extension of the BIS at the moment, but we will carefully consider having a nationally funded extension. I understand the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to that measure. The BIS has an important part to play in many areas that have suffered from structural or sudden decline, which my hon. Friend emphasised in relation to the dockyard.
There are a number of enterprises already in place in the Plymouth travel-to-work area. There is a network of local enterprise agencies and community-led organisations, supported by Government, whose primary purpose is to provide support and advice for those who may want to become self-employed. The Manpower Services Commission provides financial support for those in that category under its enterprise allowance scheme at the rate of £40 per week for 52 weeks. Currently there are 1,640 people on the scheme in Devon. The MSC also provides a number of training programmes that are specifically designed to assist men and women who wish to start new businesses.
For those who may not find employment on leaving the dockyard, the MSC has a broad range of training and retraining programmes, including the new job training scheme. As a long stop, the MSC's community programme provides 12 months' work for longer-term unemployed people, and there are currently 4,000 approved places in Devon. Certain other developments are being brought to bear on the problems that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Devonport have raised. Again, I shall


ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to review these in the light of the comments that my hon. Friend has made.
Other issues raised by the right hon. Member for Devonport concerned land and land holding. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received a consultants' report known as the Plymouth area survey, which seeks to rationalise the property of the Ministry of Defence in Devonport and the surrounding areas. The report is being urgently considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and he fully understands the need for conclusions to be reached soon. This is exactly the sort of survey that would have the effect that the right hon. Member for Devonport would wish to see, with special and urgent attention being given to the Ministry's holdings within the Plymouth area. I hope that the report will produce solutions for it.
I understand that there are issues in connection with the release of land, the planning of enterprise zones, and the development of an airport. The question of the Plymouth area, and measures to alleviate the consequences of the changes in the dockyards, which have been put in hand, require a multi-purpose approach. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met the Plymouth council recently, in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), whose commitment to dealing with these problems is total, it was suggested that there should be a co-ordinated effort by all Departments. I expect that, again, this is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East would fully support.
There has been no specific departmental initiative, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended a meeting with the council. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton accepted the remit to bring together officials from the Departments of Employment, of Trade and Industry and of the Environment and from the Ministry of Defence with the object of recognising those elements in the programmes that would relate to them. Assuming that it is approved by the policy resources committee, the Departments will receive the Plymouth city plan, which is another important initiative relating to the consequences of the changes in the dockyard.
We recognise the enormous problems that Plymouth is facing as a result of the changes in the dockyards. The Government will be doing all that they can to support the local economy during its present difficult period of restructuring. Obviously this is a matter that cannot be changed easily or quickly, but the Government, through their economic policy, are providing a climate of sustained growth and falling inflation within which they can expand and flourish. I am sure that Plymouth, too, will take full advantage as it seeks to improve and develop its economic base.

Orders of the Day — The Economy (North-East)

Mr. Michael Fallon: A debate on the north-east is long overdue. I can recall only one other debate in this Parliament on this region. This is inadequate when one considers the amount of time that is given to Scotland and Wales in both Question Time and debates. It may seem early in the morning, but in the north-east many are going to work. Many start shifts at this time. The only puzzle is the absence of the entire north-east Labour party, whose Members are no doubt slumbering on peacefully in their beds, or perhaps elsewhere—perhaps Mr. Ken Livingstone might investigate.
This is a useful opportunity to draw attention to the importance of the region in our economy and to the background to the region's economic development. Nearly 3 million people live and work in the north-east, which is a region with a proud history and, more important this morning, it is a region with a future. I first spent some time in the north-east on Teesside, back in 1974. It was a region then dominated by the state. Its major industries were nationalised industries, such as coal, steel, rail, engineering and shipbuilding, or they were industries which were heavily dependent upon the state for grants, such as chemicals engineering, and sc. on. At that time, 40 per cent. of the region's housing was public housing of one form or another. Half of all its income taxpayers received some sort of benefit.
In the mid-1970s it might have appeared that the region's economy was in good health. Men were being paid good wages, but those wages were being paid because of inflation and by means of subsidy. A higher proportion of men were in work in the mid-1970s than are in work today, but beneath the surface of that slightly higher level of employment jobs were dangerously concentrated. Almost one third of employment in manufacturing was concentrated in large units employing 1,000 men or more, and too many of those men were doing semi-skilled or relatively unskilled work and were highly vulnerable to technological change.
The commercial culture of the north-east was, I found, fundamentally conservative, risk-shy and anti-entrepreneurial, and so we suffered in our region more than other regions in England when it came to the second oil hike and the world trade recession of 1979–80. We lost jobs more rapidly than other regions and too many of our people became dependent upon welfare and on provision by local government of housing, transport and other services.
Since then, much has changed and my belief is that the north-east is getting back into business. Manufacturing is expanding, not simply in the United Kingdom, but specifically in the north-east. New companies are being established in the north-east: some 6,000 new businesses are being set up every year. Small businesses are growing. The House does not have to take my word for it. Yesterday the Northern Echo published a survey entitled, "North on way back," which said:
Business confidence is returning to the North-East, according to top financial specialists. Research carried out this month … in the region has revealed growing optimism. More than 80 per cent. of those asked by the business intelligence section of David Sheppard and Associates … said business confidence had improved over the last three


months. Management buy-out activity had increased significantly; profits were up, even in declining traditional industries, and firms were becoming more competitive in overseas markets.
Business is back with a vengeance.
Ownership is changing in the north-east. We have sold 40,000 council houses, and hundreds of thousands of people in the north-east have become share owners for the first time. A total of 25,000 people in the north-east have
become self-employed. Fifteen years ago ownership was concentrated in the hands of the state or in the hands of the few. People were working in the pits and the shipyards for the Government. Production managers, even in the private sector factories, were working for multinational corporations with their headquarters miles away. More and more people in the north-east are now working for themselves or in businesses in which they have a direct stake.
Employment is improving in the north-east. Redundancies continue, of course, and my hon. Friend the Minister will know of the redundancies in my constituency. However, redundancies now are increasingly being out-numbered by the new jobs that are being created. There are 40,000 more people in work than in 1983. If I had predicted that when I stood for election in Darlington in 1983, I might not have been believed. About 25,000 people left the unemployment register every month last year in the north-east. For the first time in years we have the prospect that this year the north-east will see unemployment dipping below the 200,000 level.
I should like to give a simple example from my own constituency of the way in which that industrial and economic change is taking place. I could refer to the many manufacturing companies in Darlington which have added labour during the past four or five years—for example, Harvey Plating and Magnet and Southerns— but I shall refer to a much smaller company called Konlangaz Ltd. I first visited this company in 1983, when it had one small factory on an industrial estate in Darlington and employed 12 people in the manufacture of coal and log-effect gas fires. It was having great difficulties in persuading British Gas to approve and take on its products.
I returned to Konlangaz Ltd. nearly four years later. It now has four factories, three in Darlington and one in Aycliffe. Instead of employing 12 people, it now employs 72 and hopes to employ more than 100 by the end of this year. The company has benefited, not only from the Government, through assistance under the new regional policy and under the job grant scheme, but from the privatisation of British Gas, because the new enlightened British Gas is now fully marketing its products.
Such expansion shows that small businesses can grow into medium-sized businesses in the north-east and that they do not need the elixir of a development agency or the type of state planning about which we hear from Opposition Members. However, they need steady progress and economic recovery on a national level from the Government, and Government assistance in the form of training and environmental aid. That is the role that the Government should play in the north-east.
First, the Government should get the United Kingdom economy right, because unless they do that they cannot hope to get the north-east economy right. Successive low

inflation year after year is of far more benefit to any finance director than any amount of regional development grant. Stable finances make the north-east, as well as the rest of the country, a more attractive location for international investment. I do not believe that Nissan would have come to the north-east, rather than to Belgium, Ireland, Holland or anywhere else if it had not seen the prospect of a sound economy, with low inflation, stretching for years ahead in this country.
Privatisation is vitally important for the north-east. Lower energy costs are important for our industries, but, more than that, we must diversify ownership and the industrial base in the north-east to provide employment for our people.
The environment that the Government have begun to create is also vitally important. In the north-east it is vital, not simply that small businesses start up, but that new businesses start up, because so many of our older businesses have shed labour. The first and primary role of the Government in the north-east is to get the United Kingdom economy right.
Secondly, it is Government's legitimate function to provide the modern industrial environment that we need in the north-east and to clear away the debris of the past and of the last industrial age. Therefore, we should not carp at a small reduction in capital grants under regional development policy. On Teesside those grants seemed to go to those important companies that were shedding, rather than recruiting, labour; for example, ICI and the British Steel Corporation. I am delighted that that small reduction in capital grants and in the grants for modernisation and reinvestment has been more than compensated for by the amount of urban and environmental aid that we receive in our region.
The derelict land clearance scheme is now an important instrument of regional policy and we are seeing direct results in our rail-side revival project in Darlington. I look forward on Teesside to the establishment of the urban development corporation. This is the only way of pulling together the public and private sectors and of revitalising that area of desperate dereliction.
Thirdly, it is the Government's function to train and retrain our work force. In the past 10 or 15 years the northeast has not had the new skills necessary to adapt to the new demands of industry. No Government in my experience have done more than this one to help train and retrain our work force. I note that some 25,000 youngsters will benefit from the youth training scheme in the northeast this year and that same 20,000 adults will receive training. Such is the importance of training to our region that even of the Labour party's programme for 1 million jobs, nearly 400,000 will come through extra training places.
I note, too, that the sums spent on training in the northeast far outweigh those spent in the south-east. In the south-east, £59 per head is spent on training, the British average is £107, and in the north-east we are getting £179 per head. That is the answer to those who carp at the so-called lack of Government support for the north-east.
A fourth, equally important, dimension to the Government's work in the north-east is confidence building. The region has been short of self-confidence for the past 10 years. We need to promote the north-east, and only the Government can assist us to do that. We have much to do ourselves to promote better working practices,


new forms of industrial management, a better environment for business, lower rates and more attractive conditions for enterprise, but the Government can assist us to promote the north-east, not as we used to, as a sort of rust bowl and industrial culture ever dependent on grants from London, but as a region of opportunity. It is one of our few regions where there is space for development, room to breathe and a feeling of warmth and community, so often lacking in the rootless suburbia of the south-east and the crowded M4 corridor. It has the attractive countryside of the moors and dales on its doorstep. We must promote a region where we can combine low-cost enterprise with a much higher quality of life than exists elsewhere and above all a region which can produce premium goods and services.
How do we promote the region in that way? After many experiments and much adjustment we are beginning to see the right type of promotional framework. We now have the Northern Development Company, northern investors to attract venture capital into the region, two new urban development corporations almost up and running on Tyneside and Teesside with formidable budgets, and local enterprise agencies hard at work in most of the industrial and commercial centres. We now have the promotional framework to start marketing the north-east as a region of opportunity and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to encourage us in that task.
There are a few ways in which my hon. Friend the Minister can assist us more directly. He has the power to locate institutions of Government. What happened to the Civil Service dispersal programme of the mid-1970s? Why is it not possible to reconsider the difficulties of recruiting secretarial, clerical and technical staff in the metropolis and see whether that work can be done more easily and more cheaply further north? Why are so many public bodies and quangos still located in the south? What is the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce doing in Reading? Why is it not at the top of the Vale of York? Why are the headquarters of so many of our nationalised industries in London? Why is the Coal Board in Belgravia? Why is it not in the north-east? What are British Shipbuilders doing in Knightsbridge, and British Steel in Pimlico?
Why do we not reconsider the huge spending power that surrounds defence establishments? So many of these bases, research establishments and regimental headquarters seem to be based in the south and south-west of the country, historically in a region from which the threat has obviously receded. Why are these regiments and defence bases not transferred to the north-east, nearer to the NATO flank, which after all we are committed to defend? Why are we not servicing our Army on the Rhine from the nearest accessible geographical location, the north-east coast, north-east England and eastern Scotland?
What about the Department of Trade and Industry? What can my hon. Friend the Minister do to market the region and its goods and services? There are a number of almost surreptitious organisations; for example, Better Made in Britain. I appreciate the constraints of Community law, but we need to sell the north-east, not only in Europe and overseas, but to ourselves. I wonder sometimes why we do not have a "Great North" exhibition to showcase the industrial and commercial premium products that we produce in the north-east and so encourage the rest of the country to come up and take a look.
The north-east is changing. It has been through a dramatic period of change. I believe that the present Government policies of getting the United Kingdom economy right, of training and retraining our workers, of clearing away the old industrial environment and helping to provide a modern industrial business climate are the right policies. For the first time in 10 or 15 years those policies should allow the north-east to ride industrial change and go with that change, instead of simply being the victim of that change, as has happened so often in the past.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on his success in securing this debate. It is very relevant to the north-east and to the country as a whole that this region of Britain, which has, in the past, been so important in sustaining the growth of Britain's manufacturing industry, should be seen to have a future and not just a past. Over the past few years my hon. Friend has contributed greatly to the debate on the future and economy of the region, because of the effect that it has nationally. He has put forward a consistent line and always produced a most thoughtful and detailed analysis of the region's problems and the way in which they can be tackled.
My hon. Friend's ideas have always been original and thought provoking, and I should like to identify myself with their general trend. There are always specifics with which individuals disagree. I make no secret of the fact that the suggestion that the region would benefit from so-called wage flexibility does not appeal to me. I know, however, that it appeals to many hon. Members. I think that the region needs not wage flexibility, which I interpret as low wages, but rather the reverse. The way to inspire the expansion and growth of the region's economy is to attract talent by giving it a special incentive to come. That is a minor disagreement. There is general agreement about what is needed to secure a sound and growing future for the region.
I should like to draw attention to the need to sell the region as one of hope, opportunity and the future. My hon. Friend has consistently tried to do that, in the face, unfortunately, of negative impressions being created by Opposition Members. In his excellent speech this morning, my hon. Friend has returned to that theme.
What would an unscrupulous competitor say if he wanted to attract something that he feared would go to the north-east? He would portray the north-east as a region of failure. He would say that it is old-fashioned and based on a crumbling industrial structure. He would say that there is no hope of recovery, that there is rampant unemployment, which is bound to get worse, that people live in grinding poverty, have no will to survive and no longer feel that they have anything to contribute to society, that there is no hope of new industry going to the region, that the infrastructure offers nothing to industry, that what is required is more public spending that is locally raised, and that the Government have no interest in the region. It would not be surprising if such comments put people off from going to the region.
Unfortunately, that is precisely what too many politicians in the region are saying. They sum up the gloom-mongering reports that are produced with unremitting consistency by the quasi job promotion


agencies which, unfortunately, are prolific in the area. I am not referring to the agencies to which my hon. Friend referred and which do a good job, but to others such as the North-East County Councils Association — I do not know whether it is now defunct — which had an annual funeral to bury the economy of the north-east and tried to make it more ponderous each year.
Is it not time that such reports drew attention to the positive things that the region can offer, many of which my hon. Friend referred to? They could start with the natural resources which give the region an unparalleled advantage. We have a beautiful and extensive landscape. Much wealth still lies below the surface of the soil. Our infrastructure is among the best in Britain. We have a coastline and sea ports. The mighty Tyne and Tees flow through the region. There is rich farmland. There is housing and space for new housing. The skilled and willing work force is still there and available.
There are added advantages that the Government have brought, such as the enterprise zone, which has proved successful on Tyneside, the urban development corporations, which have been promised and which, when they come, will inspire more growth in areas that most need it, and the regional grants that are available to industry. There has been a high level of Government spending since 1979 in all aspects of the region's life. There are positive signs of economic and employment growth, an example of which is the Metro Centre on Tyneside, which, in the enterprise zone, has already created more than 5,000 jobs and promises a further 5,000.
The Nissan car plant at Washington, a few miles from the Tyne, although not yet a great employer, is growing at a fast rate producing Japanese cars in Britain. This country has wanted to do that for decades. The company has made the most optimistic predictions for the future and it has continually brought forward its deadlines for expansion. We will see thousands of jobs at Nissan before many years have passed.
The chemical industry, having gone through hard times, as has every British industry, is now on a clear upward growth pattern. It is a diversified industry in the region, particularly in pharmaceuticals, and that industry was not there 20 or 30 years ago.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to training and retraining. The effort, investment and dedication to such activities in the north-east are not equalled anywhere. This is helping to provide a strong structure for the future as industry and investment in the region pick up, as they will.
I referred earlier to the negative side of the formula, characterising the approach of many local government, particularly Socialist, politicians, and in that context I shall quote from a report that was published earlier this month. I referred to it in the House the day after it was published. The report, aptly entitled "It's Not Really Like That", has been compiled by someone who calls himself an academic, one Fred Robinson of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Apparently it was commissioned—I should love to know what it cost—by BBC North-East to help in the production of a programme about unemployment in the area. I have rarely read a more depressing and soul-destroying document, and I am left wondering about the mental health of the compiler once

he had completed his task, for only someone with the most sturdy spirit could continue to find life worth while after writing such depressing and dreary words.
As it is only 7.15 in the morning and we have the rest of the day in which to recover, I shall read to the House a few extracts from this report to illustrate how inaccurate and unhelpful they must be to anybody who wants seriously to examine the economic and unemployment problems of the region with a view to doing something about them. The author comes to this conclusion on the front page, before going into the arguments and evidence:
The economy of the region is trapped in a spiral of long-term decline. The future prospects appear grim. There is no light at the end of the tunnel and there are no policies currently on offer which are able too make much of an impact on the region's problems and halt the decline.
It is significant that he claims that no policies are currently on offer from any party. I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is seated on the Opposition Front Bench, has sufficient faith in his party's policies, if he does not have faith in ours, to reject that statement.
Mr. Robinson continues:
the fundamental feature of the region is economic decline"—
the definition of the region—
which has had an enormous and damaging impact.
It will continue to do. He asks whether this part of Britain is
going to be left to decline, abandoned by industry and relatively neglected by Government.
We are only into the second page of the report when we come to that conclusion. Mr. Robinson then proceeds to the devastating conclusion that 19th century success in the region was "founded on coal-mining". It must have required days of research to ascertain that. He then comes to the equally devastating conclusion:
the North East, like other parts of the country, was experiencing considerable economic problems even before 1978–79".
I wonder why he chooses that date.
Dealing with recent economic trends, Mr. Robinson writes:
there are strong indications that economic and employment decline will continue".
Every page of the report is characterised by a further and gloomier statement. On page 10, Mr. Robinson writes:
there are few signs that the region is recovering.
He then comes to the enterprise zones and the urban development corporations, both of which he dismisses in less than a sentence, with no reference to the successes whch the enterprise zone has had and the true objective of the development corporations. There is no mention of the Metro Centre or of the 5,000 or 6,000 jobs that have been created. When reference is made to Nissan, it is in a dismissive way in one paragraph as though it means nothing for the future economy of the region.
When it comes to self-employment, Mr. Robinson grudgingly admits that there has been some success, although he says that it has been "modest". He suggests that it will not work because of
lack of capital, skills and relevant experience.
In a rather curious sentence he says:
The encouragement of self-employment and small firm growth may be a reasonable component…but it will not do much to reduce unemployment.
So he dismisses in a phrase the possibility of self-employment or of small firm growth offering a long-term future for the region. Indeed, Mr. Robinson says:


It is clear that existing policy measures do not represent a solution to the region's problems.
Mr. Robinson then comes to a very curious conclusion when talking about what is needed. This is one of the few "positive" aspects of the report— "positive", that is, from his point of view, not mine. He suggests that reductions in public expenditure have curtailed employment growth and that the reverse is required, pointing to rate capping as one of the most dangerous aspects of policy for economic growth. He uses the curious sentence:
Ameliorative economic development policy measures are indeed modest when compared with the impacts of these other policy actions".
I think that he is trying to say that he wants more public spending but does not seem to be able to force his pen to construct those words.
Mr. Robinson comes to the heading "Prospects", summing up with the wonderfully incisive description:
The economic prospects for the region are grim…It is…apparent that further major job losses are to be expected".
And so it goes on. I can see hon. Members sinking into a slough of total despondency, so perhaps I had better not quote the remaining sentences from that section. They go in exactly the same direction. I shall therefore miss the middle sections of the report, which merely add further substance to what I have said, and will instead come to the conclusion.
Not surprisingly, one finds that exactly the same sorts of conclusions and sentences as in the introduction, which was not supposed to be a conclusion. Mr. Robinson says that it is unlikely that the position will improve at any stage. He says:
Pious hopes…are inappropriate and are hardly a serious response to an enormous problem.
I have appeared to dwell at great length on all the aspects that Mr. Robinson highlighted in the report, but my point is that he never suggests anything positive. He does not suggest any policies or how the problems should be tackled. It is purely a catalogue of what is wrong and a criticism of everyone involved and of every policy adopted.
There is no suggestion of a positive policy, and that is typical of the approach to the region adopted by those who hold vaguely Socialist or Labour beliefs. The only positive thing that I can find is the rather enigmatic phrase:
but the 'bottom line' is the distribution of income".
Fred Robinson does not go on to say what he intends to do about that. I take it to mean some sort of vague Marxist interpretation of the economy of the north-east and that he wishes to see some form of redistributional economics. It completely escapes me how that policy will be implemented and how it will represent a realistic answer to the region's problems. It is no surprise that the BBC television programme, "The Smiths"—according to the BBC and Fred Robinson, it is based on that report—is a rather depressing programme. However, I am glad to say that it is not as bad as the report.

Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most shameful things about the report is that it carries the imprint of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne? It is increasingly difficult to defend the excellence of this center of learning against threats to its existence when shoddy reports such as this are produced by the pseudo-academic unit of that university, the Curds Centre.

Mr. Merchant: I accept my hon. Friend's point and I have also seen his early-day motion. It does not help the

excellent academic reputation of the University of Newcastle, nor the many efforts to try to attract help to the university from all sources, to have its name on such a report. This tends to happen from time to time in university departments. Anyone who has any doubts should read this report—I do not wish to consign it all to the wastebin—as it represents an object lesson in what is wrong with those who approach the problems of the north-east with this terrible negative attitude.
The report and the television programme dwell on unemployment, which is a serious, severe problem. In castigating the report and accepting the limitations of the television series I do not, in any sense, wish to play down the severity of unemployment in the region. It is very serious and we will not tackle it by turning our backs on the problem.
I have spent a considerable time investigating, in one way or another, how the problem applies to individuals rather than to statistics—statistics do not tell the whole story. A few months ago I spent a week trying to put myself—admittedly imperfectly and in an artificial situation—in a position where I could understand more about those on Tyneside and in my constituency who must face long-term unemployment. That experience had a profound influence upon me and it changed my views. I am the first to admit to the serious poverty of spirit, hopelessness and hardship that stems from long-term unemployment. There are also severe side-effects. There are problems with energy bills, vandalism, crime and the environmental decay that is focused in areas of high unemployment.
I do not wish to appear to be turning my back on the most severe problem of unemployment—above all else, our policies must tackle that problem—but I have spoken to a great many unemployed people about their needs, and the first thing that they say they want is a job. Therefore, it is right that we should focus our attention on the economy and on industrial regeneration.
In conclusion, I wish to draw attention to those problems that require the implementation of Government policies to try to reach a settlement that will create the jobs that are vital to the region. The impact of local government rates in the highly-rated areas of the northeast, such as Newcastle, cannot be underrated, if you will excuse a pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The impact is colossal. I have a wealth of evidence from companies and individuals who have moved from the region, downgraded their activities, planned to move or have failed to invest more because of the high level of the rates.
I am a strong and passionate advocate of the Government's proposal to replace the rating system with a community charge for householders and by an equalised rate system for businesses. When I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government two days ago, he assured me that on the business and industry front in Newcastle there will be a fall of about 40 per cent. in the cost of rates, a saving of about £35 million a year to local business as a result of the rates equalisation that the Government intend to introduce. I welcome the move forward wholeheartedly and believe that it will bring a major change to investment and economic approaches in Newcastle. I hope that the system will be introduced as soon as possible.
I was delighted to learn from the figures that the majority of householders in the city will benefit. We must understand that householders bring businesses and


investment into the region and that they will see a reduction in their present rate bills when the community charge is introduced. Many of them will enjoy a major decrease in what is now their rate bill. They will pay about £250 to £300 a head in the form of a community charge, according to my hon. Friend the Minister, and this will clearly benefit those who are paying bills of £600 a year, and there are many of them. There will be a marked saving for many. The Government have the right rates reform policy, and it is one of great significance for industrial investment.
The Government have the right policies, as well as their incentive policies, which include enterprise zones and urban development corporations. I hope that more can be done by the introduction of simple, straightforward taxation. I happen to be one of those who believe that nothing is better tailored to help the development of industries and companies than that. I should like to see regional tax differentials, and these could be applied enthusiastically to the region in which my constituency is situated.
I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington in calling for the greater devolution of state industries, and there is a great prospect of our defence establishments following that course. I regret the decisions that have resulted in the loss of employment in this sector in Newcastle, to the benefit of Leeds. I hope that the Government will look more kindly on the prospects and possibilities of devolution of state jobs.
There is much in the region that could competitively produce and supply essential defence requirements and civil orders, while creating jobs at the same time. It seems only sensible that the Government should be able to fulfil their requirements by providing adequate defences and power stations and all the other requirements of a modern industrialised society, while sustaining jobs in areas where the work force is uniquely capable of producing the goods that are needed. The necessary employees are at hand and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider more vigorously the speeding up of power station orders for Northern Engineering Industries, ship orders for the shipyards on Tyneside and defence orders for Vickers and the Royal Ordnance factory.
I end by complimenting an Opposition Member on his contribution to the process of attracting Government orders to the region. I refer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who has shown himself to be acutely aware of the need to look to the future and not the past, which unfortunately many of his colleagues are not. He has led a successful campaign, with which I have tried to identify myself, to being about precisely that approach to orders for NEI, which is situated in his constituency. I congratulate him on that.
There is one point on which I do not entirely see eye to eye with the hon. Gentleman, and that is on the future economic structure of the region. In a recent television programme, he was asked what he would like to see done to encourage the region's economy. He referred to more Government spending and a northern development agency, neither of which is essentially the direction in which the region will prosper in future. At least he had a suggestion which, it could be argued, had some coherence, which is more than can be said for another participant in

the programme, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When asked what he considered was the answer to the region's problems, he visibly swallowed a few times and said:
Energy conservation and proportional representation.
Neither of those shattering policies will being about the major regeneration that the region requires.
The total lack of vision that characterises the traditional Socialist view of the north-east is illustrated only by the backward gaze of the unseeing eye into a nostalgic and fanciful era of full employment. At this time of the day, and earlier, men would crawl in their thousands along 3 ft high seams to hack out their living in the murky, dripping hell of the coalface, or would stream in their masses through the shipyard gates to hover precariously over the Tyne, constructing huge metal edifices in molten metal to eke out their daily existence. Yet those are the days which, strangely, the Labour party still worships. It apparently wishes to recreate that era. We want to consign history firmly to its place. Our vision is not one of the past, but of the future. It is a vision of hope of a newly constructed economy—of new industry based firmly on a locally inspired enterprise culture.
Just as the country has seen no less than an economic miracle of regeneration brought about by the inspired leadership of radical Thatcherism, so must the positive force of economic liberalism burn freely throughout the north-east so that, when we speak of the north-east being great, we shall refer not to the past but to the future.

Mr. Richard Holt: It gives me much pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) on introducing the debate and on highlighting the rather nauseating report by Fred Robinson. It cannot have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that during Question Time earlier today the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) probably typified more exactly the attitude of the Labour party in the northeast than anyone could have done by his rather damning question to the Prime Minister about gloom, doom and job losses. He did not mention the fact that, a fortnight ago, ICI announced the creation of 5,000 new jobs in new technology in Cleveland. That will happen within the next two years. That negative attitude, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred, has been prominent in Labour party thinking.
I do not know whether I should consider myself fortunate or unfortunate. My constituency is on the map. It is a permanent fixture, believe it or not. The land, the sea and the coast exist. But county borders move according to the whim of bureaucrats, Governments and diktat. In one way, I shall speak as a Yorkshireman, and in another way I shall speak as a north-easterner because of the vagaries of politicians over the years. The identity of the River Tees area is different from the rest of the north-east of England. That is because it is being run by Conservative-controlled local authorities. The move in that direction is gaining pace.
I am proud to be a frontiers man. All that lies to the south of my constituency is blue, while to the north it is mostly red, apart from a few isolated pockets. However, slowly but surely the people of the north-east are beginning to realise that the Labour party's con trick and the endemic knee-jerk reaction that they must vote Labour because their fathers and grandfathers voted Labour are


being challenged. They realise that the whole area is about to undergo a metamorphosis. No less a person that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said in my constituency last week that it is time for change and that the people in my region must get used to it. He made that point when launching the Business Youth Enterprise Year in Langbaurgh.
Why is there green-eyed envy of the south-east? I am frequently asked by people in the north-east why there is no difficulty in attracting industry to Buckinghamshire. Frequently I have to tell people—I am rather tired of it, but the tale is worth telling over and over again—that in that area we did not have to ask the union bosses whether we could do this or whether we could do that. In that area trade unions are as relevant as the dodo. They are probably less relevant than the dodo, because in its day the dodo helped to clear the earth of some of its bad things.
There are promising signs and I have already alluded to them. Urban development corporations are coming to Newcastle and to Teesside. I intend to refer to the UDC for Teesside. It is being welcomed by Teesside. Another welcome sign is that, despite all that has been said by the Labour party and its Pavlovian followers against the city technology colleges, the Labour-controlled council of Langbaurgh, to its credit, has accepted the CTC concept. It has made a planning application and designated land for the purpose. It will assist the Government to establish the CTC. It is to that council's credit that it realised that we cannot return to the five year apprenticeship, with lads of 14 or 15 making the tea and learning very little. By means of the CTCs and the technological colleges young people will require the skills that will enable them to obtain the jobs of the future.
While my hon. Friend the Minister of State is reading Fred Robinson's book, which will probably give him nightmares and nausea, he should also read the book entitled "Living at the Fringe." It is a far better study by the University of Durham of the entire region. It is a much more readable and a much truer account of what is happening in the area.
Having given that piece of advice to my hon. Friend, I must now go on to give a little more, though it may be a little harder to swallow. It is time for the Government to wake up and realise where the north-east is. I constantly write to Government Departments telling them that they write and talk about Middlesbrough when they should be talking about Langbaurgh. They use a sort of shorthand for the area of Middlesbrough when they should be talking about Langbaurgh or Stockton. I am disappointed to see that I am the only Cleveland Member of Parliament present for the opportunity, which is so infrequently presented to us, to speak on the region.
We need a major arterial road to run from the southeast of England and not the current deathtrap, the A1 from Doncaster northwards. The number of deaths on that road alone justify the Government's investing to improve that infrastructure. It is not sufficient to say that over the next few years crash barriers will be erected. With the advent of the Euro tunnel it is essential that the northeast of England has an opportunity of direct road access without the bottlenecks and the difficult conditions that exist at the moment.
There is another measure that the Government should be taking for the north-east of England. They should be looking at why we are the only European country that charges light dues for ships. If our ports are to prosper and

compete fairly against Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg and Le Havre, then let us not tie one hand behind our backs to start with by putting an impost on the ship owners for light dues, which should have been abolished in some form over many years.
I can find no economic or justifiable reason why light dues should fall on the limited number of ships that come in. That, while it may seem a loss of revenue to the Treasury, would ultimately be an opportunity for jobs and a work opportunity that we should not miss.
I cannot find any economic logic in continuing with London weighting. That creates the artificial north-south divide that people talk about. Housing problems are created by that, with the consequent lack of fluidity of labour. If someone is being given thousands of pounds a year in addition to his salary for doing exactly the same job, he is able to put a higher proportion of that money into purchasing a house, which pushes up the prices and creates the greater problems that we have in the mobility of labour.
Recently I suggested that the Government should seriously consider giving grants to people in the north-east of England who have been unemployed for a long time so that they can come south, put a deposit on a house and in that way fill the vacancies which exist there. I was condemned by the Labour party in the north-east of England for immoral thinking. What was I doing suggesting that people should be allowed to move from the region? Would I not denude it of all its skills and opportunities? I did not hear those same political parties condemn any Government, including all Labour Governments and the Lib/Lab Government, for allowing people to take inducements to go to Australia, Canada or New Zealand. It seems that it is all right to take money to far-away countries, but it is not all right to be given a grant or assistance for what is now universally recognised as the major problem in job movement—housing and housing costs.
I hope that when we return after the general election one of the Government's first measures will be a new rent Act to do away with that which has been on the statute book for far too long.
I want to refer to a third publication. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who spoke eloquently on the question of Robinson's book, and I have referred to the Durham university book. There is one other book which has probably had a smaller readership than the other two. Nevertheless, it is an important book because of its authorship. It identifies absolutely and clearly that, in itself, investment destroys jobs. The book is called "Respond" and it was written by the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Whitby and the church leaders in Cleveland.
The book says that the more money one puts into major industries, the more one destroys the jobs in those industries. That must be borne in mind when people talk about giving grants for this and for that. We need a review of the type of society that we shall have throughout Britain and not merely in the north-east of England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central spoke about high rates. I do not blame him for complaining about that, because he lives in Newcastle and has a burden to bear second only to that borne by my constituents in Cleveland and Middlesbrough who have the miserable distinction of being top of the high rates league. It would not be so bad if people could see


something good for all that money, but they cannot. Instead, they see depressing situations that are almost out of hand.
A realism is now beginning to appear. The coal industry in the north-east is today in profit. Who would have thought that that was even conceivable 10 years' ago. Certainly, it was not on the mental horizon of anyone 20 years' ago. It was part of the folklore of the area that one continually had to subsidise the coal industry. To have suggested that one day it would be in profit would have been like telling our grandparents that one day a man would land on the moon.
An even greater example of realism is to be found in the steel industry in my constituency which today is profitable and, by every standard, is the stong man of European steel industries. Indeed, it is probably the strong man of the steel industries in the Western world. Everyone who works in those industries take great pride in the fact that all that has been achieved in such a short time. We have a short time in which to make our speeches but I hope that they are significant speeches. It is not the length of a speech that determines its importance, but the content.
I hope that one or two of the markers that I have put down will find a responsive ear in the Government because no area in Britain deserves to have the continuity of a Conservative Government more than the north-east of England. Yesterday in Cleveland I had the pleasure of meeting all the candidates who will join me here shortly as Members of Parliament. When that day comes the northeast of England will be much better.

Mr. Gordon Brown: We welcome this opportunity to discuss the problems of the economy in the north-east, not least because of the clear division of opinion that was exhibited early in this debate between the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) on the issue of regional wage variations and wage costs.
Most of all, we welcome the debate because of the opportunity that it gives us to spell out two days after the publication of our document "New Industrial Strength for Britain" our positive policies for the northern economy. First, these policies would mean an enhancement of training opportunities in the area that would respond to many of the criticisms made by the Manpower Services Commission about the failures in industrial training. Secondly, these policies would mean that more research and development would be carried out in the north and north-east, and they would end the increasing location of research and development in the southern parts of England. Our policies would stimulate industrial investment in the north. One of the figures which the hon. Gentleman did not mention was the catastrophic fall in the real value of manufacturing investment in the north since 1979.

Mr. Don Dixon: Three weeks ago I asked the Treasury about manufacturing investment in the northern region from 1979 to 1985, that being the period for which that office has figures. The answer was that manufacturing in the northern region had fallen by over 42 per cent, in that period. On the question of research and development, is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have just

reduced the amount of money available to Newcastle university, which has had to pay off lecturers and other staff?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) for being present for this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is right. The latest figures produced by the Department of Trade and Industry show that the real value of the fall in manufacturing investment since 1979 is about 41 per cent. The fall in manufacturing investment throughout the United Kingdom is about 20 per cent. The northern region has suffered twice as much as the rest of the country.
I am grateful for the comments and concern about Newcastle university. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who attacked those who worked at Newcastle university and suggested that that university's case for grants was being diminished, might call on the Government and the University Grants Committee to change their position on that matter.
I am grateful for the opportunity to explain our policy for a Northern Development Agency, which has been criticised during this debate. I understand that some Conservative Members have now reluctantly accepted the setting up of the Northern Development Company, and I applaud that. I also applaud the efforts of local authorities, trades unions and industry in the north for getting under way in difficult circumstances. The only policy that seems to commend itself to Conservative Members in their contributions to this debate is a reduction in rates, despite a Government commissioned study which cast doubt on the impact of rates on levels of employment and regional wage variations.
Our policy is for a Northern Development Agency, not for a central bureaucracy dictating to the north what is in its best interests. The Northern Development Agency will be a local agency for local people, meeting local needs, stimulating local industry and local jobs in the north. The agency will commend itself to a far wider community than only the Labour movement in the north of England.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the National Economic Development Council, which had masses of money but wasted it, dominated and controlled as it was by nit-picking local councillors, was such a failure?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that that is the view taken in the north. People there welcome the establishment of the Northern Development Company as an extension of what has been done, but most people would like to see, in time, the creation of a Northern Development Agency. Support for that comes not only from this side of the House but most recently from statements by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who is a convert to the concept of a Northern Development Agency, and by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who favours that concept for England.
The reason why that development agency is needed— and why we will set it up immediately on coming to power— is to deal with some of the fundamental problems that have been identified during the course of this Government but not resolved. The hon. Member for Darlington painted a picture of the northern economy that would not be shared by all the residents of the north of


England. That picture was then confirmed in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. They seemed to be concentrating on the silver linings and ignoring the dark clouds that dominate the industrial horizon of the north.
If the northern economy is doing so well under this Government—let us remember that they have had seven and a half years to deal with the problems with which they promised to deal— why is it that over those years we have lost 171,000 employee jobs? Even after taking into account what Conservative Members call a "boom" in the numbers of self-employed, but what I would call a small increase, the figure is still 150,000 jobs lost.
More than that, why is it that when the Government made their submission to the ERDF only a few months ago they had to accept that unemployment in the north could hardly be reduced, if at all, under the present policies? Therefore, it is not just a case of a catastrophic fall in the value of manufacturing investment, which has been aided by the deliberate policy to cut the amount of regional assistance available to both incoming and indigenous industry, but a policy that has seen jobs lost in almost every sector in the north. In particular, these jobs have been lost in manufacturing at a time when small losses have been recorded by many of our industrial competitors, while in Japan the numbers of people in construction and manufacturing employment have risen.
In the short time available to me I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions that arise from the theme of the debate. We have heard mention of a number of reports that have been produced recently. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, instead of giving us some positive proposals, spent almost all the whole of his speech criticising a report called "It's Not Really Like That". There has been reference to a report by the Bishop of Durham, called "Response", and we have heard of one produced by the university.
The report to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister is not by the Labour party, or by academics, whom the Conservatives are always criticising, but by the Government. It is their report to the ERDF, which I understand is to be the basis of discussion later this week. One would expect that such a report would give the Government's thinking about the northern economy and what might be done to assist it. We would expect such a report to be honest and fair in its treatment of the evidence.
The report does not identify, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did, mass migration as a solution to the problems of the north. He must realise that that will weaken the economy of the north considerably. Even if incentives are given for people to move, the result is a fall in the population, the disappearance of skills and a diminishing of the chances of recovery. The report did not talk about the new fashionable solution, supported by the hon. Member for Darlington, of regional wage variations at a far greater level than we have at the moment.
The report said:
The most important problem facing the area of the north is unemployment. The present high levels of unemployment are unacceptable but the situation will not improve until a number of more fundamental problems are solved.
These fundamental problems—I hope that the Minister will confirm that I am reading this accurately—are:
a weak economic structure, inadequate infrastructure— more investment in particular is needed in communications, water supply and land drainage, gas, waste disposal,

telecommunications, industrial land and modern industrial floorspace—an excess of unqualified manual workers and, a shortage of qualified people. Environmental dereliction; particular problems include the unsightly coastal area and the rundown appearance of some inner city areas.
Interestingly, the report goes on to say:
one of the fundamental problems that needs to be solved before unemployment is going to fall is the social deprivation in the north, which requires more education and training facilities".
I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will note this: "It needs better health facilities, the absence of which is one reason for poorer standards of health in parts of the northern region."
Those are recommendations from a report that has been prepared by the Government and sent in the Government's name to the European regional development fund. Those recommendations are clear. What is needed is public investment in training and the infrastructure, a stimulation of manufacturing and private investment in the north and a co-ordinated approach by the Government. Those are the problems that need to be solved as a matter of urgency if unemployment is to be substantially reduced in the north.
The Opposition are committed to resolving the problems. That is why we have announced our determination to create the Northern Development Agency to co-ordinate a response on industrial infrastructure and industrial investment. It is also one of the reasons why our jobs programme is pledged to help the areas in greatest need, by providing the opportunity for training places at a far higher standard than that which exists at present. It is why our jobs programme also includes proposals for increasing the quality of community service and why there is our economic enterprise package.
The Opposition have the policies to resolve the problems of the north. The speeches that we have heard this morning from Conservative Members will do nothing but perpetuate the problems of the north. We have given the north a vote of confidence with our policy to create the Northern Development Agency. In my opinion, we have: heard valedictory addresses from Conservative Members What we need is an early general election so that we will have the opportunity to implement the policies that will solve the problems of the north.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): I have to give the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) full marks for rousing the House at 8 o'clock in the morning with his five colleagues alongside him giving a real reception for the new policies that the Labour party has just published. As is so often the case, it is too little, too late. As my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) have already said, the position in the northern region, the north-east in particular, has changed dramatically in the lifetime of this Government and there have been significant changes and improvements.
When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East starts on his track asking why a report went to the European Community, compiled, as he knows, by the local authorities which have strong views on the matter, let me say to him that it is important to obtain sufficient investment from the European Economic Community, in


[The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry addition to what the Government are already doing, to ensure that we get our share of regional development fund activities. I hope that we shall enjoy his full support in seeing that that happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington pointed out the important fact that there are already significant changes in the north-east that have to be recognised for what they are. First, there is a major shift in both attitude and action, and, secondly, there are the early signs of recovery in an area that has long been written off, certainly by the Opposition, as something that can no longer sustain its part in a vibrant and growing economy.
The important questions my hon. Friend put were: why do we not have a greater sense of what is possible, and why should there not be more confidence about the prospect of recovery in the north-east? I have to say to my hon. Friends, that the issue of the north-south divide is one of the biggest reasons why it is not easy to talk confidently about the north-east. There has been an overdose of utter gloom, despair and despondency, which has reached a level at which it is difficult to persuade people to take seriously the prospects of increasing life and opportunity in an area that has been allowed to receive the accolade of a desert north of Watford. The facts of the case are entirely the opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington referred rightly to the fact that the first priority should be to get the national economy right, there is no substitute for providing that background against which any reasonable regional policy can be developed.
The economy is now moving in a direction that will allow substantial growth to occur in all regions. I understand that the facts about manufacturing investment cause great concern to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He is absolutely right to express his concern. However, he will know of the shift that has occurred since 1983 in the rates of manufacturing investment. I am sure that he will be glad that even in the northern regions —the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside — the average increase in manufacturing investment was 20 per cent, in that one year alone. The national trends are still continuing.
The investment made by this Government in the form of assistance to the north-east is substantial. Total Government financial help for the year 1986–87 for the north-east will exceed £1 billion. Expenditure by my Department in the regional aid programme since 1979 has exceeded £800 million and has created or safeguarded over 90,000 jobs. The Department of the Environment has funded economic, social and environmental projects to the value of ?300 million since 1979.
I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington laid great stress on the importance of improving the environmental aspects of the north-east. Derelict land which has been one of the appalling legacies of industrial manufacturing over many years, has been high on the Department of the Environment's list. About 2,341 hectares of derelict land have been reclaimed since 1979 in that region alone. That is due to the imaginative use of the programme by this Government. About £1·25 million has been added to that programme so that in 1987–88 £14·25 million will be available to do just what my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central want to see done. When we hear, as we have done from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle

upon Tyne, Central, about people's attitudes, it is not surprising that we get a bit fed up when we are doing as much as we possibly can to bring increased activity into that region.
When Fred Robinson produces his document, which I assume means that there is not much light at the end of Fred Robinson's tunnel, I do not think that we should give it much room. I am reminded of Stella Gibbons and her famous little book "Cold Comfort Farm", in which the four cows were called Aimless, Graceless, Feckless, and Pointless. That is probably a fair obituary for Fred Robinson's efforts in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh welcomed the development of urban development corporations. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome them because they are an imaginative way to try to get a co-ordinated approach in that area and to bring real resources to bear. I hope that he will maintain close contact with the UDC which will shortly be set up and working in the Teesside area. The one in the Tyneside area is already taking shape under the chairmanship of Mr. Nicholson, and I imagine that that too will be a large generator of activity in the region.
The main problems of the north-east stem from the long decline of structurally-based industries. I have to accept that. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) knows very well that the shipyards and heavy engineering which used to be the heart of industry in the north-east has declined over many years and is now in an extremely parlous state.
We must make absolutely certain that we bring new jobs and new investment into that part of the country. The hon. Member for Jarrow will be well aware of the efforts that have been made to bring investment into the country. I welcome the Northern Development Company and the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of it, not just as a more optimistic way of approaching the problem, but because it is a commitment, not just from the local authorities and central Government Departments, but because the private sector is coming in as well to provide a substantial generator. In the programme for the current year, more than £1 million will come from my Department for expenditure on the promotion and development of the north-east of England.
Therefore, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that, in relation to confidence and promotion, that new vehicle could not have arrived at a better time. We must look to it to demonstrate beyond doubt that in the north-east of England there is a large and vibrant prospect of further development.
We must contrast the decline in the structural industries which have served the country so well for so long with the massive increase, for example, in retailing and distribution. We must contrast the Metro centre in Gateshead which is the finest shopping centre in Europe with the declining industries with which it is surrounded. Marks and Spencer in Newcastle-upon-Tyne has the highest rates of sale outside the main shop in Baker street. That, too, contrasts sharply with perceptions of the north-east.

Mr. Dixon: Does the Minister accept that the NDC was the initiative, not the Government, but of Tom Burlison, the chairman of the northern TUC?

Mr. Shaw: I am delighted to pay tribute to Tom Burlison, whom I met on several occasions. I regard his


participation in the NDC as making a major contribution. The people in the north-east decided collectively that they wished to see an NDC, which is why it is rooted properly.
Clearly, in the north-east there is a major problem of exceptionally high unemployment which must be reduced. The initial fall has started, albeit almost imperceptibly. We now have in place substantial Government assistance for training schemes, derelict land, industrial investment and improved infrastructure. Of all the regions with which I am acquainted, the north-east undoubtedly has the best communications network. I accept that to get there, the Al is the least desirable of all major trunk roads and my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh rightly drew attention to that. But, equally, he will know that there is a major programme of reformation work to be undertaken on the A1 to improve it.
I accept that at present there is still a large gap between the decline of the structural industries and the release of jobs, and the rise of new industries and the creation of new jobs. But there is now sufficient interest in new investment in the north-east, led by the Nissan project, which was a major threshold crossed, which means that with the axles already in place, the policies now being pursued and, above all, with the commitment to the economic development of the United Kingdom as a whole, we shall see better prospects for jobs and industries.
The greatest possible guarantee of that is that, despite all the enormous problems in the north-east, the people have a spirit and capacity to survive which is second to none. I visited Consett when the plant closed; we then spent £4 million clearing that site; and I can scarcely believe that in a relatively few years we have seen 1,250 jobs in new industry working out of the old Consett area. That is a tribute to the people, who at the end of the day will proudly carry their fortunes into the future.

Orders of the Day — Sussex Police

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing): It has been a somewhat long wait since 3.30 pm yesterday to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the establishment of the Sussex police force. We have had a series of important but not heroic debates and I doubt whether anyone will join with Henry V in saying:
And gentlemen in England, now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here.
But our proceedings necessitate keeping a careful watch in case a debate unexpectedly comes to a conclusion and the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to one's constituents is missed.
I am glad to raise this subject which concerns all my colleagues in east and west Sussex. The Government's policy on law and order is good and has been effectively developed since they came to office. I greatly welcome the considerable improvements in police pay and conditions. There has been an overall increase in technical resources and I am glad that the legislation before the House will enable higher courts to review what may be regarded as too lenient sentences in order to avoid the inadequate punishment of crimes.
I also welcome the increase in the prison building programme. Some time ago we were in a vicious spiral where a lack of accommodation might have led to lighter sentences than would otherwise have been passed. As a result, crime was increasing, convictions were going up and there was continuing pressure on accommodation. I hope that, with the improvement in the programme, appropriate sentences will be imposed and that that will provide an effective deterrent and the pressure on prison accommodation will be reduced correspondingly.
All of those factors are good from the national point of view. However, we must recognise the fact that there are considerable differences between the regions among the various provincial police forces. That gives me particular cause for concern. Like my constituents, I am worried about the recent crime figures.
I want to pay tribute to the splendid efforts made by the Sussex police force in all its operations and also to pay tribute to the response from the public to the crime alert system. It has received strong support from my constituents and from the local press and has had an impact on the general level of crime in my constituency and elsewhere in Sussex. During the night I wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate about the crime alert system. There are some problems about planning permission with respect to the appropriate posters that can be put up in areas subscribing to the crime alert arrangements. I look forward to receiving a reply to that point in due course; I do not expect to receive one this morning.
With others in west Sussex, I have been pressing for an increase in the establishment and size of the police force. There is especially a need to increase community policing. I made representations to the Minister and initially was glad to receive a reply and to read the press release issued by the Home Office on 10 March 1987 with the headline:
More police officers for provincial forces.
I was particularly glad to read the final paragraph on the first page of the press release which stated:


The increases are intended for use directly to enhance operational police strength, mainly in terms of increasing patrol cover and community policing in specific divisions where the workload is highest.
I welcomed that statement, together with the list of approvals for different provincial police forces which contained a figure of 66 for Sussex. I also noted that the report states that the
increases for Dorset and Warwickshire meet in full the police authorities' applications for the next financial year. The increase for Staffordshire meets in full the remainder of the police authority's application for 52 posts.
On the face of it, it appeared that our requests had to some extent been met. Alas, I regret to say that our joy was short-lived. It is clear now, after going into the matter in greater depth, that the press release is, to say the least, grossly misleading.
As I understand it—and no doubt the Minister when he replies will tell me whether I am correct—all of the 66 mentioned in the press release are to go to meet the extra demands imposed by the opening of the new terminal at Gatwick airport. The whole number will be devoted to that purpose and not, as the press release states,
directly to enhance operational police strength, mainly in terms of increasing patrol cover and community policing.
Worse than that, as I understand it, despite the requests otherwise made by the police authorities in Sussex, it will be necessary for an additional 21 special branch officers to be allocated to meet the further demands of Gatwick. The strain with regard to the overall police force outside Gatwick will be increased instead of being, as the press release implied, reduced.
There are other problems associated with the development. I understand that it will not be possible for the chief constable, who would normally have some flexibility in the allocation of resources, to have the same flexibility with officers allocated to Gatwick, partly for reasons that I shall give later and partly because of the strains which the Gatwick operation imposes with regard to drug control and general international problems.
I understand that the Sussex police force will also be required to train the extra officers at Gatwick, so there is an additional imposition on the force outside Gatwick. Gatwick is now the third largest international airport in the world. It is quite clearly a national responsibility. It is sheer chance that it is in Sussex rather than just across the border, for example, in Surrey. It is the concern of general transport policy.
The extra 66 officers are to be paid for by Gatwick Airport Ltd. They will not be an imposition on public funds. The impression given by the press release-that the Treasury is loosening the purse strings so that we can have more community policing in Sussex-is simply not true. There is no cost to the Exchequer for the 66 mentioned in the press release.

Mr. Ian Gow: Not a penny piece.

Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend is right. There will be a strain on local finances, however, because of the cost of training the 66 and of providing the extra special branch officers. I understand that there is some discussion about whether three extra custodial sergeants should be provided, but they have not been.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the absurdity surrounding the three additional sergeants to be used as custody officers is that they also would be paid for by Gatwick Airport Ltd.?

Mr. Higgins: The whole issue is incomprehensible. I do not understand what Home Office Ministers are thinking about. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to put this issue on the record.
The Minister has a duty to bring about what his press release clearly said would be brought about. I shall not suggest that he should resign, but it might be appropriate for him to apologise for the way in which the matter has been handled. It is more important, however, that he puts the matter right. I hope that he is able to consult the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and to explain that the press release is misleading and that the legitimate requests of Sussex have in no way been met. Far from it, the strain on the police will be greater. It would therefore be appropriate for the Treasury to cover the situation created by Home Office Ministers.
It would be as well for the Minister to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who, by good fortune, is to visit the Sussex police headquarters next Friday. I believe that he will discuss traffic management and the like, but the visit will give him an opportunity to appreciate the strain that transport policy puts on the Sussex police.

Mr. Gow: Perhaps the Secretary of State will take the Chief Secretary with him.

Mr. Higgins: Perhaps it would be better if the Chief Secretary simply approved the increase.
The crucial point is that the Minister concerned should get together with his colleagues, whether they are in transport or in finance, and ensure that the requests for additional precincts, for increased patrol cover, and so on are met. Part of the problem arises from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and various issues involving custody officers, and so on.
I do not want to take too long, because many of my Sussex colleagues wish to speak. Clearly, not every one will be able to take part in what will be the shortest of our debates during the night—indeed, it is only about half the length of most of the other debates.
In the letter sent to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department— my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)— when the announcement was first made, he referred partly to "civilianisation", or using civilian forces. The Sussex police have gone to great lengths to implement that policy, with considerable success, but they do not have great scope for proceeding further down that road.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give attention to that point. His letter of a few days ago is out of date. He should have checked on the situation. He understood that the existing establishment was not fully met and that there were problems with recruitment. I have checked and I understand that, although, that occurred earlier, it is not the case now. Moreover, I am assured that there would be no problems in recruiting and training those for whom the police authority had sought authorisation. The letter, which sought to pray in aid the fact that the existing establishment was not up to strength, is out of date and is no longer valid.
For all those reasons, I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister clearly has a duty to implement what the official statement issued by his Department clearly said would happen. Not only is that not true of Sussex, but the reverse is the case. My hon. Friends and I believe that this position should not continue. It must be put right at the earliest possible moment. I hope that, having carefully considered the matter and having realised the way in which it has been presented, my hon. Friend will tell us that he will agree forthwith to our modest requests, which have been made on a firm basis, or at the very least will say that he will consult his colleagues and come back to the House with a favourable reply for my Sussex colleagues and me. This is a matter of great concern to all our constituents. It should not have been handled as it has been handled.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the debate, which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). It is notable that of all the debates that I have attended last night and this morning this is the best attended by hon. Members interested in the subject. That is a mark of our concern. I endorse what my right hon. Friend said about the Sussex police and what they do so admirably for the communities of Sussex, and also what he said about the local media, not just the local newspapers, but local radio, in supporting the police in controlling crime.
I should like to emphasise again some of the points made by my right hon. Friend. If our hon. Friend the Minister had listened to Sussex Members or, indeed, to the chief constable of Sussex as long ago as last December, he would have been assured that the force would be up to strength at the end of the fiscal year, which now means as of the end of this month. The chief constable gave my colleagues and me that reassurance then, and it has just been borne out by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
The letter from the Home Office to the clerk to the Sussex police authority on 9 March said:
The Secretary of Slate suggests that consideration should be given to meeting the requirement of the remaining 37 posts in the police authority's latest application through civilianisation and recruiting close to the police establishment.
However, that was an excuse and will not do the trick.
On the matter of civilianisation, which has mentioned correctly by my right hon. Friend, that letter stated:
The Secretary of State has noted the continued progress in implementing the civilianisation programme in the Sussex Constabulary, the information provided with the police authority's latest application for additional police posts, that measures already taken have released the net equivalent of some 50 patrol officers, with more expected.
More are expected, and presumably they have been allowed for in the chief constable's plans. However, to step from that congratulatory tone to the expectation that the total requirement for 34 new officers could be met in one year is begging credibility.
My right hon. Friend referred to the increase in police numbers at Gatwick terminal. However, he did not emphasise sufficiently the fact that those extra officers do not represent a supplement to the existing police force at Gatwick—which is already doing a necessary job-but are to meet the specific requirements of the new terminal. That new requirement comes on stream at the end of next

year. Therefore, it is all the more peculiar that the Home Office press release of 10 March says that the increase of 66 officers for Sussex would be used directly
to enhance operational police strength
throughout those areas that need it.
It is inconceivable that either through civilianisation or by recruiting up to strength the gap can be met between what is needed in West and East Sussex and the numbers that the Home Office is allowing for those areas. In future it may be possible to change the classification of those officers who serve Gatwick and who are recompensed by the British Airports Authority. That is something that would be applauded, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that, but, it will do nothing to improve the position this year or next year, and it is probably unlikely that it will do anything to help in the year after that. Some action must be taken now.
The tragedy is that there is a requirement for more police both to assist the population in our constituencies in Sussex in the policing and control of crime, and to meet the dramatic increased strains on the police because of the upsurge of crime resulting from the use of drugs. The drugs problem pertains to Gatwick and also to Brighton. Sadly, it must be said that there is no place in the country- certainly no constituency in East or West Sussex-that is not touched by tragedy of drug misuse and associated crime.
The allocation of 66 officers was specifically identified for Gatwick. Indeed, the letter of 9 March states:
The Secretary of State approves an increase of 66 posts … for duties at Gatwick Airport.
That letter is not trying to mislead. Unfortunately, the Home Office press release is, at best, trying to mislead, or, at worst, covering up unacceptable actions. As a new day starts, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will shed new light on the decisions taken and apply himself to the necessary actions to put the matter right.

Mr. Michael Marshall: This is a bitter-sweet moment for me, because by participating in this debate I am squeezing myself out of a later one this morning. I am pleased, however, to have the opportunity to support entirely what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said.
The problem that we are debating has exercised the minds of Sussex Members over several months and has to be considered in relation to the recent crime figures. It is most unfortunate, to say the least, that at a time when there is great public anxiety over crime figures an announcement should be made to the effect that there will be a net reduction in the number of effective police on the ground.
Gatwick is a national need and it should be considered in that context. I am beginning to turn towards the idea of a national police force at least to execute responsibilities of the sort that apply at Gatwick. The arrangements that are being envisaged for Gatwick raise the question of drugs, which are a major problem at an airport which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, is the third largest airport in the world. The connection between drugs and violent crime has been well demonstrated, and we want to help in Sussex and play our part. We want also to support what the Government are proposing to do as set out in the Criminal Justice Bill. I join my right hon. Friend in looking forward to the implementation of that legislation. The provisions on rape


and violent crime that will be coming before the House on Report are of the utmost significance in the wider context of the fight against crime.
At the end of the day, the public believe that the most effective deterrent against crime is police officers on the ground, as it were. It is worrying that apart from Gatwick needs, and even if our full request had been met, we would have seen only an additional 13 policemen available for general duties throughout West and East Sussex. Surely that is not asking a great deal.
It must be said that the Sussex police are being asked to carry out an increasingly difficult and sophisticated task. Perhaps there has been a shift away from policemen on the ground over a long period. I have gone into the issues carefully, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am quite satisfied that a modest request was made. I must tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State— I do so more in sorrow than in anger— that his enthusiasm, which we all applaud greatly in many regards, has in this instance been misplaced. There is no doubt that he has aroused expectations. We have all sought to assure our constituents that the Government were taking the representations seriously. Therefore, as I said at the outset, to have to say that we shall suffer a net loss in police manning at a time when the crime figures are showing increases of a worrying nature is singularly unfortunate.
I shall conclude because I know that some of my hon. Friends are anxious to participate in the debate. If we bear in mind Sussex police activity and the way in which the neighbourhood crime watch programmes have gone ahead, there is evidence of splendid co-operation between the public and the police. There is an excellent relationship between the police and all the local communities in Sussex. One of the areas in which they would all want to join us today is in once more praising the work of the police, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) did, and saying that they must be given support. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity of saying that he will consider again something that has not met the needs of our county.

Mr. Ian Gow: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my two hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate, my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). There is unanimity in the counties of West Sussex and East Sussex among every Member of Parliament about the need to meet the modest request which has been made by the police authority and the chief constable for new manning levels for next year.
I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that Sussex Members had a meeting with the chief constable on 19 December 1986. That was followed by a letter dated 9 January, less than a month later, from the chief constable. All of my hon. Friends will agree that in Mr. Birch we have an outstanding chief constable. Indeed, he has won the admiration and respect of those who serve under his command and of all of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is not least because of his remarkable qualities as a police officer that we feel that special consideration should be given to his request, endorsed as it is by the police authority.
In his letter to me of 9 January the chief constable wrote—I think that he wrote to all of my hon. Friends on the same day—
In November 1985 the Sussex Police Authority approved an increase in establishment of 66 officers for the policing of the North Terminal at Gatwick Airport. That increase has not yet been approved by the Home Office because of the delay in the opening of the North Terminal. We do expect to receive approval for that increase within the next few weeks.
It took a bit longer than that. The chief constable went on to state:
Gatwick Airport Ltd. will fund the whole of that increase".
That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, in whose constituency the police headquarters are situated.
I cannot understand how my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can continue to assert that the number of policemen required specifically and exclusively for Gatwick airport—paid for by not a penny piece from anywhere except from Gatwick Airport Ltd.—should be a charge against our police establishment. Such an argument would have done credit to Lewis Carroll, but it does no credit to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Benches. The chief constable went on to state:
The Review of the Force indicated a minimum and immediate need for an extra 134 officers just to allow us to stand still in levels of service.
That was at a time of a tragic increase in crime. On 20 February, the chairman of the Sussex police authority wrote to hon Members in East and West Sussex. He stated:
The delay in the issue of Home Office approval is causing us some concern, and has prompted this letter to you with a request for your assistance.
The chairman of the police authority went on to state that after the 66 and the 21 required for special branch duties
this then leaves only 13 to provide extra men on the beat for the whole of the remainder of East and West Sussex.
I remind the House that, for the purposes only of the police authority, the counties of East and West Sussex are combined. They have a rising population. Alas, the tendency to crime is not diminishing as time proceeds. On 24 February, I wrote to the Home Secretary in these terms:
We had a meeting with the chief constable on 19 December 1986, at which we were all persuaded"—
that is to say, my right hon. and hon. Friends—
that it was absolutely necessary for you to approve an increase of 100 in the authorised establishment of the Force for the coming financial year.
That increase of 100 only means an extra 13 policement actually on the beat. That is the point that we seek to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
I take part in the debate with great sadness. I find myself in serious disagreement with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. There is no Minister with whom I would more prefer not to be in disagreement. But it is possible for my hon. Friend to put right a matter that is causing deep concern to all of us. I say this in a spirit of great friendliness to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker is in the Chair. He is a saintly man. He and my hon. Friend will remember the advice given by our Lord: "Though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him."
We must leave aside issues of friendship. Hon. Members who represent East and West Sussex will be


importunate in bringing this matter again and again to the attention of the House, and, if necessary, in a further Adjournment debate next week and the week after that, until the legitimate claims of the police authority, the chief constable and the people of East and West Sussex have been met.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is very difficult to follow the compelling rhetoric of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in West and East Sussex. However, from my standpoint in the western part of West Sussex— mine is a very large constituency of approximately 600 square miles—there is consternation that the increase in funding and the manpower provision for police forces has not been translated into a larger complement of police officers. The House should be aware that in fulfilling their duties very special strains are being placed on the existing establishment. The personal dedication of the divisional commanders and of those who serve under them has been outstanding during a period of increased strain and pressure.
Few members of the public realise how gallantly the police have fulfilled their responsibilities during the past year. Many people are also unaware of the fact that large areas of the county are not policed for long periods. It is alarming but nevertheless true that on some occasions the whole of the northern part of my constituency, north of the Downs, has only one police officer on duty at certain times of the night. That is an area of over 300 square miles, with a very large population. That police officer has to respond to whatever incidents may arise in the area.
One of the problems is that the increase in legislative requirements has imposed a paperwork responsibility on the police that has taken them away from the sharp end of their responsibilities. Those problems were highlighted when we met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and when we corresponded with him. In the rural constituencies people are concerned about the fact that the increase in police manpower appears to be for Gatwick. That is some way away from the area that I represent. They fear that 13 additional police officers for both counties will not be translated into a significant or meaningful increase in manpower in my own very large constituency.
There is great concern about the increase in crimes against property. Those whose homes are burgled believe that nothing can be done about them. The clear-up rate remains, sadly, remarkably low, despite the efforts of the police. There is great concern about burglaries in the city of Chichester. During the past week the parish council of Westbourne has written to me about vandalism and about the need for a police officer to be on the spot to try to prevent vandalism and other crimes. There are student and tourist centres in Chichester where there has been an increase in drugs-related offences with which the police have to cope.
My constituency is not alone among the constituencies of East and West Sussex in attracting major events of one kind and another. That leads to a diversion of police effort and to a major demand on police manpower.
For these reasons, my hon. Friend must respond to the requests that have been made today. It will not be enough for him to explain why the proposals he has already announced will be sufficient. I hope that he recognises the pressure of public feeling and the unanimity of the concern

that has been expressed by Members of Parliament with Sussex constituencies and that he will respond positively to the serious problem with which we and our constituents are faced.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As only 12 minutes are left for me to reply to this debate, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will understand that I shall be unable to deal as fully as I should have wished with the very important points that they have raised.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have done a great service for their constituents by the way in which they have argued the case for an increase in the police establishment in Sussex. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) have pressed me on this matter. So have all the other Members who represent Sussex constituencies, notably my right hon. and hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), Crawley (Mr. Soames) and Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). They have all pressed me on this matter in forceful terms.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will forgive me if I make a few general observations before turning to the particular. In national terms, in January 1987 we had the highest ever police manpower of 122,100. Taking 1979 as a benchmark, the total forces that are available to the police in England and Wales have increased by 16,300. Again, taking the benchmark of January 1987 as against May 1979, we now have an average deficiency of 1–3 per cent, in forces with fewer than 1,600 vacancies which contrasts with the position of May 1979 of an average deficiency of 6–5 per cent, and 7,600 vacancies.
In 1987–88 we expect to spend on the police service 46 per cent, more in real terms than was spent in 1978–79. I say that to demonstrate the Government's commitment in real terms to the police service. Moreover — this is relevant to the issue before us— it is our policy to continue that expansion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and my hon. Friends will bear in mind that in May 1986 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a policy of continuing recruitment for the police. He announced— this is the important part—an increase in the non-metropolitan force of 500 a year. That is the measure of the increase that can be announced year on year in terms of increased establishment.
In the case of the Sussex constabulary, the 66 officers are being funded by the British Airports Authority, which, to use a colloquialism, is a third party; it is not a direct arm of Government. Hitherto and historically, when calculating manpower levels for public expenditure purposes, we have always included in the police maximum figure those officers who are paid for by third parties. They swell and form part of the number. That applies also to the 500 per year by which we have committed ourselves to increase police posts.

Mr. Gow: We should not.

Mr. Hogg: I hear my hon. Friend say that we should not. May I give a justification? The justification at the


moment— I realise that this may be a temporary situation— is that establishments are used to calculate the grant-related expenditure assessment formula whereby rate support grant is paid to the counties. At the moment— I do not want to place too much emphasis on this because it may change—the police establishment is used as the basis for calculating the support that is paid to police authorities. Therefore, for that reason only, the policemen who are paid for by third parties cannot be ignored. But if we stripped that element out and said that policemen who are paid for by third parties should not count towards the GREA formula, that argument goes.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have focused my mind directly on the question whether officers who are paid for by third parties should count towards the ceiling and, a fortiori, should then count towards the annual increase of 500. This has been a longstanding convention. That is not an argument for continuing it, but many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have more experience in government than I and they will appreciate that a convention that has been in place for quite a long time may take some shifting and may prove impossible to shift. The decision does not rest exclusively with me or the Home Office. I shall look seriously and carefully at the argument. If we can properly move on this matter we will, but I cannot give any short-term commitments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, who had great experience in the Treasury, will appreciate that many considerations have to be taken into account. I promise to look at the matter seriously and conscientiously because I am aware of the force of the argument.
The next question is about Sussex itself. The Sussex constabulary applied for 103 posts— 66 officers, and three custody sergeants at Gatwick, 21 special branch people for Gatwick operating from February 1988, and 13 general patrol officers. My hon. Friends have spoken about the announcement that I made on 10 March. That was an important step towards the implementation of the 500-a-year increase.
The effect of that announcement, together with the other allocations that are presently in the pipeline and those which were carried through from the preceding year—of which there were, I think, 98—have left me with 52 police posts to allocate during the rest of 1987–88. Taking account of the March announcement, including the 66 to Sussex, I have only 52 for the remainder of the year. That is the constraint on me, and I hope that my hon. Friends will take that into account.

Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I apologise, but I cannot give way. I have only five minutes in which to make one or two further points.
As I have said, that constraint operates on me and it operates on the Home Office. As my hon. Friends have said or at least implied, hitherto the force in Sussex has not been up to establishment. In 1985, taking quarterly figures, the average deficiency was 31. In 1986 it was 44·5. In

February 1987 there were 15 vacancies. We are not yet wholly certain that by the end of this year the force will be up to establishment.
I should like to make two points about that. First, it is right that the force should be brought up to establishment, and, secondly, if it is brought up to establishment, it will mean that the deficiency of 44·5 has been eliminated. Therefore, another 44 officers will be available for general policing duties in Sussex. That is a positive expansion in the number of police officers available.
There is another point on civilianisation. In the chief constable's report dated 20 November, he identifies as a result of the progress of civilianisation a net increase of 50 constable posts, and he says that there are more in the pipeline. I do not know how many are in the pipeline until I make inquiries. Let us say that the figure is 15. That means that we are talking about an increase of 65 available for general policing duties.
Over a short time Sussex has got, by way of an increase in general policing duties, the 50 that have been civilianised plus those that are in the pipeline— say 15 for the purpose of the illustration, which gives a total of 65— plus the eradication of the deficiency. That makes a total of about 100. I must take that into account.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing has put his argument very clearly, and I understand its force. First, I have asked the inspectorate to go back to Sussex to check in detail what has happened to the civilianised posts, how many are in the pipeline, what will happen to them and what has happened to the 50 that were deployed at the end of last year. Secondly, I shall ask the inspectorate to check the exact level of vacancies, if any. There may be none.

Mr. Higgins: There is none.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend says that there is none, in which case that will be in the report. My advice two or three days ago was that there were vacancies. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is none, but I want it checked. That is not unreasonable. I want to ascertain whether Sussex is certain that it will maintain that level. Thirdly, I shall ask the inspectorate to reassess the need for the remaining 37 unapproved posts and also the time at which there will be a real need for those 37. As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, the 21 special branch officers are not required to be operational until February 1988.
I can give my right hon. Friend no commitments. I am operating within the constraints that I mentioned. In particular, I have a limit of 52. But my right hon. and hon. Friends have put the argument extremely forcefully. No one could have done more than they have. I am not, I think, being a total fool. I have taken account of what they have said and, insofar as I can properly and reasonably help them, I shall do so. That is a commitment of good will. I am afraid that I cannot put a quantity on that assurance.

Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, following my hon. Friend's reply, I have to give notice to the House that I shall seek to raise this matter again on the Adjournment.

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Dairy Farming (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

9 am

Dr. Roger Thomas: Farming is very important in many parts of the United Kingdom, but in no part is it more important than in south-west Wales. Although I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and am agreeable to having this debate with him, in Dyfed and throughout Wales there will be disappointment that the Secretary of State, who normally handles agriculture questions in respect of Wales, is not here to reply to the debate.
In five of the six districts in south-west Wales, now known as the old county of Dyfed, one in five people directly or indirectly depends upon agricultural production for his livelihood. Because of topography and rainfall, agriculture on the western side of the United Kingdom relies heavily upon grassland enterprises. There is little scope for diversification into other types of farming. The activity must be exclusively or predominantly dairy.
The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, in a recent report to a bankers' seminar, revealed that fully half of our dairy farms have serious financial problems, which were defined as low profitability and increasing debts. Profitability has still not regained the levels of the early 1980s. Overall in Dyfed, 8 per cent. of people are employed directly in agriculture, compared with 2·4 per cent. for Wales and 1·6 per cent. for the remainder of the United Kingdom.
The expansion in the dairy industry in the decade up to 31 March 1984 happened in Wales far later than it did elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Between 1981 and 1983, Welsh milk output expanded by 25 per cent.—two and a half times the average British increase. Therefore, the House will understand that when quotas were introduced on 1 April 1984 the effect was disproportionately catastrophic in those areas of south-west Wales. Cuts averaging 6·2 per cent. were imposed in the first year, and a further 1 per cent. cut followed in 1985–86, because the base year chosen for the calculation of quotas—1981— was disastrous climatically for the United Kingdom, and we suffered one of the largest cuts in Europe. That seems especially unjust since the United Kingdom is still not self-sufficient in milk products, and countries producing considerably more than their market requirements suffered lower cuts.
Sudden policy changes allow no transition and no adaptation, and the British Government do not appear to use their discretionary powers to ameliorate the suddenness of policy changes, whereas the Governments of other member nations certainly do.
In December 1986, the Council of Ministers' package, hailed in the House by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as an important breakthrough, acceptable to and accepted by all member nations, was confined mainly to milk, beef and agri-money. The Council of Ministers agreed that between April 1987 and March 1989 we would have further quota cuts and reductions of 9·5 per cent. The Minister will be aware that there has not been a widespread welcome in south-west Wales. On the contrary, this has come on top of two and a half years of widespread and serious financial difficulties, with many farmers forced out of business and others

struggling through bleak, tempestuous times, with the knock-on effects producing austere prospects for an already depressed rural economy.
The late 1986 package will add appreciably to an already critical position, for Welsh farmers are adamant that solutions to the problems of overproduction weigh far too heavily upon those innocent of their creation. As a consequence, milk production in England and Wales in 1988–89 will be only 4 per cent. above the level of 1973 when we joined the EEC. By contrast, German milk production will be 14 per cent. up, Netherlands production will be 23 per cent. up and the Republic of Ireland will be 63 per cent. better off with regard to milk production than in 1973.
Because the domestic markets for liquid milk, cheese and other products must still be supplied, the main impact of the cuts in milk output falls now upon butter milk production. It is estimated that the latest package of quota cuts will reduce the current England and Wales milk supplies by 1·5 billion litres by the end of 1989. That is equivalent to a cut of 40 per cent. in the volume of milk currently being used for butter manufacture. I need hardly remind the Minister that cheese creamery production in south-west Wales disappeared with the closure of Newcastle Emlyn just after the 1983 election and the subsequent closure of the cheese creamery at Johnstown. Now we are concerned about the future of the butter creameries in south-west Wales. In one there has been considerable investment and expansion and in the other, which is just outside my constituency, there are great fears for the future.
The direct loss to the rural economy will be of the order of £280 million, with knock-on effects estimated at another £200 million. Butter factories are traditionally situated on the western side of this country where they are close to the milk supplies and, generally, they are situated in the smaller rural Ćommunities rather than in the major conurbations.
A total of 56 per cent. of Welsh milk production will go into butter making and the corresponding figure for England and Wales as a whole is around 30 per cent. One will realise, therefore, the predicament we are in and the fears that we have in south-west Wales. A further cut in milk production will undoubtedly affect farmers' returns. Eighty per cent. of milk is produced by 20 per cent. of producers. Therefore, there is a likelihood that cutbacks in production could be substantially greater than the 10 per cent. envisaged. The package will have an immediate effect upon producer returns.
In an oral reply on Monday the Secretary of State talked about
across-the-board compulsory reductions in quotas".— [Official Report, 23 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 10.]
because of the failure of the outgoers scheme. It would have been in the general interests of the milk industry and the majority of producers who wish to remain in milk production that the 3 per cent. quota reduction be achieved from a successful outgoers scheme. One asks what has to be done further to make the outgoers scheme succeed. It is essentially a redundancy payments scheme.
In the industrial context, in south-west Wales over the past nine years or so we have been dealing with redundancy payments in the steel industry and in the coal and other heavy industries. The farming community is wondering why it cannot be given equal treatment with a redundancy payments scheme. We have a redundancy


payments scheme of 27p per litre. That is insufficient. It is also insufficient in that it is paid over seven years. If the outgoers scheme was such that there would be an immediate lump sum payment to cover the first three or four instalments, people would have a sufficient amount of cash flow in order to diversify into other forms of industry, within farming and outside it, now that they have to leave dairy farming. Such a scheme could be used to assist farmers who have been badly treated by the milk quota schemes, rather than provide quota, as has been happening, for Northern Ireland.
The industry is fully aware of the advantages of a quota transfer scheme. However, the current scheme is causing problems in respect of the movement of quota away from south Wales. The rate of loss escalated during the latter months of 1986 and the early months of 1987. Therefore, there is a limit on the amount of quota that can be purchased in future in Dyfed.
The current price of the quota, at more than 30p per litre, is a disincentive to the outgoers scheme. Current schemes involving the transfer of quota, especially the "grass let" system, needs detailed policing. Illegal transfers of quota are strongly opposed. All future transfers of quota should be administered by the milk marketing board and profiteering by auctioneers and quota agents should be prohibited.
The initial England and Wales quota should be brought in line with that administered to other member states on the basis of the ratio of production to consumption. The initial quota allocation to England and Wales is inadequate.
There is concern about the suspension of intervention, which will have a detrimental effect on the wholesale producer price. More information is needed about the workings of intervention throughout the EEC. In future, intervention buying should operate as a safety net, in terms of seasonal surplus production, and not as a market regulator. We agree that the level of intervention stocks in the EEC calls for an urgent and immediate disposal policy. Details of such schemes are urgently needed. There is a need for producers, Government and farmers to enter into schemes to promote the consumption of milk and dairy products.
The discrepancy in the agri-money system was fully highlighted in the December 1986 package. The Government should be more prepared to adjust the green pound to support British agriculture and especially family farms in what is a competitive market.
Current interest rates have been reduced, but bank charges still place farmers in impossible financial situations. Interest rates in the United Kingdom should be more competitive with those that are now available in other parts of the EEC. Our interest rate is 10 per cent. whereas West Germany's is 4 per cent.
As I have said, the Brussels package is designed to cut milk production by 10 per cent. However, the knock-on effects on other sectors of the industry will be devastating, especially in the grassland sector. The package will mean off-loading 600,000 tonnes of cow beef. That can be translated into 25,000 barren cows being off-loaded in the market area of Dyfed alone. That off-loading of cow beef will affect the already depressed beef market.
A 10 per cent. reduction in production is bound to affect the creamery capacity in Dyfed. How many

creameries can the industry effectively support in that part of the world? The United Kingdom beef cow herd is already in decline. Without a substantial increase in the suckler cow premium the decline will continue. The headage premium on beef cows in less favoured areas should be raised to the maximum allowed under the EEC directive. All EEC countries will now have a production premium, but only the United Kingdom is charged clawback on its exports.
If an EEC policy directive appears harsh and politically explosive, certain member states are all too ready to support their agriculture and farmers by national means. Farming in the United Kingdom is worthy of similar treatment to keep its competitiveness. However, there is an extreme reluctance on the part of the Government to support agriculture and the rural economy. It should be noted that the Commission continues to make further proposals for the milk sector, hence the great fears that lie ahead for the farmers of south-west Wales. It is already resisting a further realistic devaluation of the green pound. If such measures are implemented and supinely accepted by our negotiators in Brussels, it will have further serious effects on the dairy industry and the rural economy.
Dyfed believes that it is vital that the Government should recognise those consequences and take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate them. The Government should help others whose employment has been affected adversely by EEC measures by paying appropriate compensation to farm workers, creamery workers and workers in the cattle-feed industries.
In Dyfed we already have evidence that the amount of feed accepted by farmers is decreasing. Since the 1982 quotas there has been an annual loss of £13 million in incomes in Wales as a result of the changes, and 1,700 jobs have been lost. If the changes of 1986 are implemented, there will be a further £11 million annual loss of oncome in south-west Wales and a further loss of 1,100 jobs. This haemorrhaging of the economy and work of the area cannot be allowed to continue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I fully recognise and acknowledge the concern of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) to ensure that the House is made fully aware of the problems facing grassland farmers in Wales and in Dyfed in particular, and the constructive thought that is being given to resolving their difficulties by the Dyfed coordinating committee and local union representatives.
The hon. Gentleman went into the difficulties of overproduction and the history behind today's problems. I do not share his view that the Government have been lackadaisical in their support for farmers. He will be the first to accept that the problems of overproduction and surpluses are difficulties that the Government have had to tackle. I remind him that when quotas were introduced the Labour party criticised the Government, saying that they were not doing enough to tackle the surplus problem.
I also welcome the recognition implied in the hon. Gentleman's remarks that changes have to take place in farming due to the immense forces of technological progress, surpluses and costs. I congratulate him, too, on his good fortune in securing an Adjournment debate on a day when the House has been up all night, and when there was a fixed time for its conclusion, thereby allowing him and me a few hours' sleep.
In opting to have a debate on this subject, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my anxiety that there should be wide public discussion on the comprehensive and far-reaching measures recently announced by my right hon. Friends the Agriculture Ministers and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Those proposals attempt to get to grips with the problems facing farmers and to tackle some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman illustrated. The initial announcement on 9 February, unfortunately, gave rise to much ill-founded and misleading criticism, particularly in relation to the guidance issued on the future planning regime for agricultural land. However, the package of documents issued on 10 March shows that these misgivings were misconceived.
The steps we have already taken and the new proposals we have announced contain provisions to encourage alternative use of farmland, increase diversity on farms and in the rural economy generally and to enhance environmental protection. These measures will help and encourage farmers to farm in a way which is sensitive to conservation and also provide an alternative source of income to offset the pressures to reduce agricultural surpluses. I am sure such policies are well in accord with the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
To reflect the present situation of commodity surpluses and facilitate diversification, the Government also intend to issue new guidance to local planning authorities in England and Wales for development involving agricultural land. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and the Environment issued a draft circular for consultation last month. The new guidance stresses the need to consider the agricultural implications of proposals in conjunction wth environmental and wider economic aspects. Planning authorities will continue to use their power responsibly and the Department will retain the right to object to specific developments.
On 1 March this year we introduced the environmentally sensitive area scheme in the Cambrian mountains. This will enable farmers with land in the ESA — of whom there are more than 450 — with 300 in Dyfed—to enter into management agreements for the protection of semi-natural rough grazing, hay meadows, broadleaved woodland and archaeological features. We see this new concept—which, as a result of our initiatives, has now been adopted by the European Community to its socio structures package — as a valuable means of protecting some of our most beautiful landscapes without detriment to the well-being of the farmer.
It is now widely accepted that technological progress and the incentives provided under the CAP have created levels of production for many commodities which are far outstripping demand. The cost, of providing, storing and disposing of surpluses have mounted to unacceptable levels. At the same time CAP policies have also resulted in farming in this country and the rest of the Community becoming highly dependent on public financial support.
The annual review of agriculture White Paper published in January this year shows that expenditures, even excluding those on items such as research, animal disease, advice and education averaged £1·7 billion per annum in the five years to 1986–87. I believe that that is evidence of our support for the farming community. The published figures for planned expenditures also show the continued commitment of this Government to the agriculture industry.
The contribution made by grants and subsidies to grassland farming in Dyfed is amply demonstrated by the available figures. In 1985 and 1986, capital grants paid in Dyfed totalled £13·2 million out of which £2·4 million was for grassland improvements. In the 1985 marketing year, sheep annual premium amounted to £5·9 million and suckler cow premium payments in the 1985–86 scheme year totalled just over £500,000. Although figures for beef and sheep variable premium are not available on a county basis, it is evident from the amounts paid out in Wales as a whole that these are also important elements of support for the beef and sheep farmers of Dyfed.
In addition to these grants and subsidies, headage payments in the form of hill livestock compensatory allowances are also vital to many farmers in Dyfed, particularly since the extension in the less favoured areas which we secured in 1984. An additional 44 per cent. of the county was given LFA status then and 397,000 hectares or 81 per cent. of Dyfed is now in the LFA. In 1986 HLCAs paid to Dyfed farmers amounted to almost £6 million. These rates have in effect doubled since 1979.
Farming in Dyfed and elsewhere has also benefited from our success in curbing inflation. I am sure the recent fall in interest rates will also be welcome by all farmers. I note that the hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of high interest rates in his county.
Before dealing with specific aspects of milk quotas, it might be helpful if I remind the House about the scale and urgency of the problem. The hon. Gentleman discussed the problem of dealing with surplus stocks in Community intervention stores. Even with milk quotas in place, the Community has an extremely serious milk surplus — estimated by the Commission at 9·5 million tonnes or 9·5 per cent. even after allowing for the continuation of heavily subsidised exports as well as expensive disposal schemes on the Community market. If these were taken out, the surplus would be more than 20 per cent.
Last year the EC's funds were increased by 40 per cent. but this has already been spent and we are facing a prospective overspend in 1987 of some £2,500 million, almost entirely because of agriculture.
Half the total financial budget of the Community is spent on storage and disposal of surpluses which have to compete for a share of a diminishing world market. It is not only the EC's stores which are full and not only farmers in Europe who face the problem of vast overproduction. Faced with such stark facts, the choice was and is painfully simple—either spending on Community agriculture is controlled, or the Community heads for early bankruptcy, which would help nobody. The difficulties which that would produce are clear for all to see.
The CAP must be reformed to bring supply closer towards what available markets can absorb. This is, however, a long-term task requiring persistence and sensitivity. I am only too well aware of the long-term nature of much livestock production, and for many years we have argued long and hard in Brussels for reasonable price restraint as the method to bring milk and other surplus production back into line with demand. I still believe that this would have been the best solution for the milk industry but, sadly, our community partners were not willing to go down this road and, as a result quotas had to be introduced.
I know that there is a view in the industry that, because we are not fully self-sufficient in dairy production, quota


cuts are unfair, but the fact is that the United Kingdom makes a significant contribution to the milk surplus. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of creameries in his constituency. We currently hold the second largest stocks in the Community of both butter and skimmed milk powder: In 1985, 46 per cent. of all butter made in the United Kingdom was sold into intervention. Moreover, in 1985 domestic production was equivalent to nearly 90 per cent. of butterfat consumption in the United Kingdom and 113 per cent. of solids-not-fat, the other main component of milk. In these circumstances, there is no justification for the United Kingdom not to share equally with other member states the burden of solving a common problem.
Faced with quotas cuts, some have argued for a reduction in imports from New Zealand, but there is no link between the special arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter and cheese and the quota system. I thought that I should take this opportunity to make that point.
Quota transfers have enabled individual farmers to make better use of their resources, but I am well aware of the concern about the sale of quota out of Wales. It is important to see this issue in perspective. The net movement is very small. During the period 1 April 1985 to 17 February 1987, the movement of quota in and out of Wales, as recorded by the milk marketing board, showed that overall Wales had a net loss of only 8·3 million litres, or 0·54 per cent. of the total quota allocated to holdings in Wales.
It would not be to our advantage to break our England and Wales quota into smaller, fixed, regional quotas. Most, if not all, other member states envy our being able to treat England and Wales as one single dairy, and we would be loth to lose that advantage. All transfers of quota are registered with the milk marketing board which maintains the quota register.
Action to reduce surplus stocks is taking place on three fronts—first, a reduction in output through the agreed cuts in quota; secondly, amendments to the intervention system to reduce it to its proper role of a safety net support for the market; and, finally, special stock disposal

measures. These disposal measures are designed to reduce intervention stocks of butter by 1 million tonnes over the next two years and will then considerably ease the financial burden which they have imposed on the Community budget.
On beef, the December settlement reduced the industry's wholly unrealistic dependence on intervention. This was the right decision. No one can defend 700,000 tonnes of good beef in cold stores. The effect on the United Kingdom will be much less than elsewhere. We succeeded in retaining the beef variable premium scheme for two years. That was a very considerable achievement.
As for sheep, I can understand the fears of sheep producers about milk producers switching to sheep production as an alternative form of income to offset quota cuts. I am aware that the industry is considering quotas on sheepmeat, and it is right that it should consider such possibilities, but the issues involved here are complicated and we are still a long way from self-sufficiency in this sector. The problems of quota are well known. They inhibit the enterprise and rational development of an industry, and the industry needs to be clear what it is proposing when it discusses this difficult issue.
As part of the December package, we also secured a hard-won devaluation in the green rate. We continue to keep the level of the green rate under review and are mindful of the disadvantages of the present large MCAs for our farmers and traders.
These are important and complex issues which the hon. Member has brought before the House. I hope that I have reassured him both of our commitment to reforming the CAP and to helping the industry adapt to the changes which farming must face if the CAP is to be put on a sounder long-term footing. The package of measures announced on 10 March and our continued vigilance to ensure that measures agreed in Brussels do not discriminate unfairly against our farmers will go a long way towards securing this objective.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Nine o'clock on Wednesday morning.